^  tfw  ®Jw<%fr#J  ft 
****** 


PRINCETON,    N.    J. 


Shelf. 


•..JBS.I.4..1.S- 

section . . .  /.  ^ .  ri. .  5.  .4-. . . . 

fife.4... 


n- 


Numbe7-. 


COMMENTARY 


ECCLESIASTES. 


MOSES'  STUART, 

LATE  PROFESSOR  OF  SACRED  LITERATURE  IN  THE  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY  AT  ANDOVER. 


dbti*i>  aub  $ebmfc 


R.      D.      C.      R  O  B  B  I  N  S, 

PROFESSOR  IN  MIDDLEBUEY  COLLEGE. 


ANDOVER: 

WARREN     F.     DRAPER. 

BOSTON :  GOULD  AND  LINCOLN.     NEW  YORK :    JOHN  WILEY 

PHILADELPHIA  :   SMITH,  ENGLISH  k  CO. 

1864. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1S62,  by 

WARREN    F.    DRAPER, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  District  of  Massachusetts. 


Andover : 
Electrotvped  and  Printed  by  W    F.  Draper. 


PREFACE. 


The  Book  of  Ecclesiastes  presents  many  apparent  prob- 
lems which  have  long  been  the  subject  of  wonder  and 
dispute  among  the  Jewish  Rabbies  as  well  as  in  the  Chris- 
tian Church.  Had  not  the  evidence  been  strong  and 
decisive  of  its  rightful  place  in  the  Canon  of  the  Hebrew 
sacred  writings,  it  would  undoubtedly  have  been  rejected 
long  ago  by  many,  as  not  being  a  book  of  divine  author- 
ity. Not  a  few  passages  seem  to  speak,  at  first  view,  the 
language  of  skepticism,  i.  e.,  of  unbelief  or  doubt  as  to 
a  future  state,  and  also  of  devotedness  to  sensual  enjoy- 
ment. It  was  on  this  ground  that  some  of  the  Jewish 
Rabbies,  at  the  time  when  the  Talmud  was  written,  made 
an  effort,  as  it  would  seem,  to  eject  it  from  the  sacred 
Canon,  as  we  are  told  in  the  Talmud,  Tract.  Shabb.  fol. 
30,  col.  2.  Some  of  the  Christian  Fathers  have  intimated 
the  like  feelings  as  existing  among  some  Christians  in 
their  times  ;  and  since  the  revival  of  criticism  in  its  late, 


8  PREFACE. 

and  specially  in  its  most  recent  form,  the  book  has  been 
treated  as  indeed  a  clever  performance  of  the  kind,  but 
after  all  as  the  work  of  a  skeptical  Epicurean.  Even  De 
Wette,  with  his  sober  aspect  and  seeming  impartiality, 
does  not  hesitate  to  bestow  such  an  epithet  on  the  author 
of  the  book.  No  wonder  that  he  has  had  many  imitators 
or  followers  in  Germany. 

The  evidence  that  Ecclesiastes  was  a  portion  of  the 
sacred  Canon  sanctioned  by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  is 
plain,  and  as  certain  as  anything  so  remotely  historical 
can  be  made  out  to  be.  This  is  shown  in  its  proper  j)lace, 
in  the  Introduction  to  the  Commentary.  This  admitted, 
it  follows  that  a  serious  obligation  devolves  on  us  to  read 
the  book,  and  at  least  to  do  what  we  can  to  understand  it. 
Thousands  of  sermons  have  been  preached  on  portions  of 
the  book,  and  a  multitude  of  Commentaries  have  been 
written,  most  of  which  are  merely  ethical  and  hortatory. 
There  is  indeed  no  want  of  material  in  the  book  for  a 
basis  to  such  sermons  and  homiletic  commentary.  Much 
of  it  is  so  plain  and  so  forcible,  in  respect  to  the  pursuits 
and  the  destiny  of  man,  as  to  be  both  intelligible  and  un- 
mistakable. To  preach  and  exhort,  in  accordance  with 
such  portions  of  the  book,  is  commendable,  and  may,  if 
well  <l<)iic,  be-  very  profitable.  But  what  is  to  be  done 
wiili  such  parages  as  2  :  24  ;  3  :  18—21 ;  G  :  12  ;  7  :  15— 


PREFACE.  a 

17  ;  25—28  ;  8  :  15  ;  9  :  2—10  ?  The  preacher,  for  the 
most  part,  avoids  them  in  the  pulpit ;  and  the  commenta- 
tors (at  least  most  commentators)  set  themselves  seriously 
to  work,  in  order  to  soften,  to  file  away,  and  to  change 
the  hue  or  alter  the  shape  of  these  obnoxious  passages,  so 
that  they  may  be  judged  to  teach  neither  skepticism  nor 
Epicureanism.  The  goodness  of  the  intention,  in  all  this, 
I  should  cheerfully  concede.  In  itself,  the  motive  may  be 
praiseworthy.  But  after  all,  real  prudence,  a  straight- 
forward course,  the  sound  and  well-established  laws  of 
exegesis  to  which  critical  honesty  should  inflexibly  adhere 
—  all  this,  I  am  unable  to  find  in  such  a  course.  I  can- 
not bring  myself  to  believe  that  the  true  interests  of 
religion  demand  of  us  to  deal  unfairly  and  forcibly  with 
any  portion  of  the  Scriptures,  in  order  to  make  it  conform 
to  our  views  of  propriety.  If  we  may  do  this  honestly 
on  any  one  occasion,  we  may  of  course  do  it  on  every 
and  all  occasions,  whenever  we  may  deem  it  expedient 
either  for  the  sake  of  morals  and  piety  or  of  doctrine. 
I  know  of  no  boundary  line,  in  such  a  case,  but  a  man's 
own  persuasion  or  fancy.  Once  break  away  from  sober 
grammatico-historical  exegesis,  and  all  is  afloat  without 
compass  or  rudder.  It  is  not  our  business  to  force  a 
meaning  upon  Scripture,  against  which  it  reluctates; 
it  belongs  to  us   to  deduce  one  from  Scripture,  if  wc    are 


10  PREFACE. 

able,  by  the  use  of  fair  and  honest  principles  of  interpre- 
tation. 

This  rule  I  have  endeavored  to  comply  with,  in  the  fol- 
lowing little  work  now  presented  to  the  public.  With 
what  success,  must  be  referred  to  competent  judges.  I 
can  only  say,  that  in  honestly  endeavoring  to  follow  it,  I 
have  found  no  serious  occasion  for  stumbling  or  offence 
at  the  book.  Here,  as  in  every  work  of  this  nature,  the 
animus  auctoris  must  be  sought  after,  and  if  possible  dis- 
covered. That  is,  or  should  be,  our  guide.  If  the  writer 
did  not  design  to  give  us  a  mere  preceptive  and  ethical 
treatise,  but  to  philosoiiMze  on  the  vanity  of  human  life, 
and  to  consider  the  many  objections  against  a  wise  and 
holy  Providence,  which  arise  from  the  miseries  of  men, 
and  the  unequal  distribution  of  prosperity  and  adversity 
among  them  —  if  such  was  his  design,  how  can  it  be 
strange  that  he  has  brought  to  view  many  of  these  objec- 
tions, in  order  that  the  reader  may  see  them,  and  see  the 
manner  in  which  they  are  answered  ?  The  objections 
should,  in  such  a  case,  be  taken  for  what  they  are,  viz., 
for  objections  or  doubts  that  naturally  arise  in  a  mind  on 
which  gospel  light  has  not  shined ;  and  the  answers  to 
them  arc  to  be  thoroughly  investigated.  Paul  has  pur- 
sued :i  similar  course  in  some  of # his  epistles ;  and  this, 
not  unfrcquently,  without  giving  any  express  intimation 


P  R  E  F  A  C  E .  11 

that  he  is  going  to  introduce  an  objector.  He  leaves  it  to 
the  intelligent  reader  to  discover  what  belongs  to  his 
opponent,  and  what  to  himself.  Why  should  we  concede 
such  a  liberty  to  him,  and  not  to  the  author  of  Eccle- 
siastes  ? 

This  conceded,  the  exegesis  of  the  book  (a  few  passages 
only  excepted)  becomes  comparatively  easy  and  plain. 
The  objections  remain  objections,  and  are  considered  and 
treated  as  such ;  and  the  answers  to  them  show  us  the 
real  mind  of  the  writer.  With  all  the  alleged  and  seem- 
ing skepticism  of  the  book,  it  becomes  clear  as  the  sun 
that  the  writer,  after  revolving  all  the  difficulties  in  his 
mind,  comes  out  from  them  with  a  lofty  tone  of  morality, 
with  an  unshaken  confidence  in  future  judgment  and  ret- 
ribution, and  with  high,  adoring,  submissive  confidence 
in  God,  and  in  his  wisdom,  goodness,  and  power.  Fear 
God,  and  keep  his  commandments,  is  the  final,  the  grand 
result  of  all. 

The  book  has  very  generally  been  regarded  and  treated 
as  little  more  than  a  succession  of  unconnected  apo- 
thegms, having  little  or  no  connection  with  each  other, 
or  dependence  on  each  other.  I  hope  to  show  the  reader 
that  it  is  one  continuous  whole,  having  one  grand  and  fun- 
damental theme  running  through  the  whole,  and  spread- 
ing its  fibres,  like  a  kind  of  fine  and  impalpable  network, 


12  TREFACE. 

over  every  minute  portion  of  it.  It  has  a  beginning,  a 
middle,  and  an  end  ;  a  main  proposition  to  be  illustrated, 
and  confirmed ;  and  finally,  some  very  important  prac- 
tical deductions  are  made  from  the  matter  of  the  book, 
in  the  way  of  command  and  exhortation.  But  the  logic 
of  Aristotle,  of  the  Schoolmen,  and  of  modern  times,  it 
ignores.  The  Hebrews  never  wrote  in  a  manner  fettered 
by  this.  They  reasoned ;  they  drew  deductions ;  they 
proved ;  but  they  did  neither  in  the  way  of  the  Grecian, 
or  English,  or  German  schools.  Paul  was  a  master-rea- 
soner  ;  but  to  school  logic  he  seems  an  utter  stranger.  No 
one  should  expect  this  in  Coheleth.  At  all  events,  he 
will  not  find  it.  But  still  the  book  philosophizes,  and 
proves,  and  disproves,  and  makes  deductions,  and  stren- 
uously urges  morality  and  piety. 

I  have  done  what  I  could  to  develop  the  plan  of  the 
book,  and  the  execution  of  this  plan  by  the  writer,  more 
suo.  This  has  cost  me  more  laborious  study  than  all  the 
philological  remarks.  Others  must  judge  whether  my 
labor  has  been  bestowed  in  vain. 

The  Hebrew  student  —  the  aspirant  to  sacred  knowl- 
edge—  has  been  in  my  eye  throughout.  I  have  endeav- 
ored to  leave  not  a  single  grammatical  difficulty,  either 
as  to  the  forms  of  words  or  the  syntax,  untouched.  In 
every  case  of  difficulty,  or  where  such  student  might  be 


PREFACE.  13 

in  doubt  as  to  the  principles  admitted,  I  have  referred  him 
to  the  Grammar  and  the  Lexicon,  with  indications  of 
the  places  where  he  will  find  illustration  or  confirmation 
of  that  concerning  which  he  doubts.  I  would  hope  that 
the  book,  now  made  easily  accessible  to  learners,  unless  I 
very  much  misjudge,  may  hereafter  constitute  a  part  of 
the  course  of  Hebrew  study.  It  is  well  deserving  of  it. 
The  idiom  is  so  unlike  most  other  Hebrew,  in  certain  re- 
spects, that  a  knowledge  of  it  must  give  any  one  a  much 
freer  scope  in  the  language.  The  Hebrew  in  itself  is 
rather  easy  than  otherwise  ;  for  great  simplicity,  generally, 
reigns  in  the  structure  of  sentences.  Seldom  need  the 
student  be  left  in  doubt  as  to  a  satisfactory  meaning, 
when  all  investigation  is  conducted  on  principles  purely 
philological.  Any  other  method  of  conducting  it,  is  in 
the  main  useless. 

In  the  earlier  part  of  my  professional  labors  here,  I 
undertook  to  lecture  on  Ecclesiastes.  But  at  that  time  I 
could  not  satisfy  myself,  for  I  could  not  then  obtain  either 
competent  or  satisfactory  aid.  I  therefore  soon  aban- 
doned the  attempt,  telling  my  pupils,  as  my  reason  for  so 
doing,  that  I  could  not  lecture  on  a  book  which  I  felt 
that  I  did  not  understand.  Lately,  I  have  resumed  and 
repeated  the  study  of  it,  after  more  widely  extended  and 
protra.cted  discipline  in  Hebrew.     Difficulties  have  now 

2 


14  PREFACE. 

seemed  to  vanish  apace.  I  no  longer  continue  to  doubt, 
except  as  to  some  individual  expressions ;  and  even  in 
regard  to  these,  I  have  at  last  succeeded  in  satisfying  my- 
self. When  we  attain  to  such  a  state  of  feeling,  it  natu- 
rally inspires  a  hope  that  we  may  do  something  to  help 
or  to  satisfy  others.  I  would  fain  hope  that  not  a  few  of 
the  apparent  enigmas  of  the  book  will  be  made  to  disap- 
pear, or  else  meet  with  a  solution,  in  the  following  pages. 
Many  a  mind  has  been,  and  is  still,  perplexed  with  these. 
If  I  can  afford  any  aid  to  anxious  and  candid  seekers 
after  the  meaning  of  the  author,  I  shall  regard  it  as  a 
high  reward. 

M.    STUART. 
Andoyer  Theological  Seminary,  1851. 


V 


CONTENTS 


INTRODUCTION. 


SECT. 

PAGE 

1 .  General  Nature  of  the  Book, 

.       17 

2.  Special  Design  and  Method  of  the  Book, 

21 

3.  Unity  of  the  Book,               .... 

.       68 

4.  Diction  of  the  Book,        .... 

70 

5.  Who  was  the  Author  ? 

.       84 

6.  Credit  and  General  History  of  the  Book, 

105 

7.  Ancient  Versions  of  Coheleth, 

105 

Septuagint,          .... 

105 

Vulgate,        ..... 

.     Ill 

Syriac,     ..... 

112 

Targum,       ..... 

.     114 

8.  Modern  Versions,            .... 

123 

9.  Commentators,         ..... 

.     124 

COMMENTARY. 


1.  Title  and  Theme  of  the  Book,  Chap.  I.  1—11,       .  .  .127 

2.  Efforts  to  obtain  Happiness  by  the  Acquisition  of  Wisdom,  1. 12 — 18,  141 

3.  Efforts  to  obtain  Happiness  by  the  Pursuit  of  Pleasure,  II.  1 — 11,     147 

4.  Limited  Advantages  of  Wisdom  ;  it  exempts  not  from  the  common 

Lot  of  Suffering  and  Sorrow,  II.  12 — 26,  .  .  .157 

5.  All  depends  on  Providence.     Man  cannot  change  the  Course  of 

Things,  III.  1—15,  .  .  .  .  .170 


16  CONTENTS. 

SECT.  PACE 

6.  Objections  against  the  Idea,  that  God  has  made  Everything  goodly, 

III.  16—22,  .....  .180 

7.  Obstacles  to  Enjoyment;   Toil  and  frustrated  Hopes  of  those  who 

seek  to  be  Rich  and  Powerful,  IV.  1—16,     .  .  .  194 

8.  How  one  should  demean  himself  in  Present  Circumstances,  IV. 

17— V.  1—6,  ......  207 

9.  Various  Supplementary  Reflections,  V.  7 — 19,       .  .  .215 

10.  Disappointments  frequent,  both  of  the  Wise  and  Foolish;  Provi- 

dential Arrangements  cannot  be  Controlled,  VI.  1 — 12,  .     228 

11.  Alleviations  of  Evil;  Caution  as  to  one's  Behavior  toward  Ru- 

lers ;  many  Miseries  come  from  our  own  Perversion,  VII.  1 — 29,  240 

12.  Men  Sin  from  a  variety  of  Causes;  Punishment  will  come,  sooner 

or  later,  VIII.  1—17,  .....  267 

13.  Suffering  is  the  Common  Lot;  we  should  look  at  the  brighter  Side 

of  Things,  IX.  1—10,  .  .  .  .  .  284 

14.  Wisdom  sometimes  fails  to   profit;  Folly  will  be  duly  rewarded, 

IX.  11— X.  20,  .....  .  295 

15.  Counsel  in  regard  to  unavoidable  Evils;  especially  Old  Age  and 

Death,  XI.  1— XII.  8,  .  .  .  .  .313 

16.  Conclusion  of  the  Book;  Summary  of  Results,  XII.  9 — 14,  .    335 


EXCURSUS. 

(1)  On  the  empty  Pursuit  of  Knowledge,  .  .  .  .167 

(2)  Is  Future  Retribution  taught  in  Coheleth?        .  .  .182 

(3)  Why  does  Coheleth  say  no  more  about  a  Future  State  ?     .  .    236 

(4)  Discursiveness  of  Coheleth  in  some  Cases,        .  .  .  240 

(5)  His  peculiar  Views  of  Women,         .....     264 

(6)  Remarks  on  Coheleth's  Method  of  Argument  and  State  of  Feel- 

ing, ........      332 


INTRODUCTION. 


§  1.   General  Nature  of  the  Booh. 

In  many  respects  the  book  of  Ecclesiastes  has  no  parallel  in 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  It  alone,  of  all  the  sacred  writings,  un- 
dertakes to  philosophize.  But  this  word,  as  applied  to  Ecclesias- 
tes, must  not  be  understood  in  the  Grecian  or  Roman  sense,  nor 
even  in  that  of  modern  European  nations.  Ontological  specula- 
tions are  utterly  foreign  to  Coheleth.  That  he  was  in  some 
degree  versed  in  them,  might  not  be  improbable,  provided  we 
should  concede  to  him  the  latest  period  in  which  the  writings  of 
the  Old  Testament  were  composed.  Grecian  philosophy  made  a 
conspicuous  figure  after  the  time  of  Socrates  and  Plato,  so  that 
all  the  nations  around  the  Mediterranean,  who  had  any  acquaint- 
ance with  the  Greek  language,  would  be  likely,  through  the 
medium  of  their  learned  men,  to  have  some  knowledge  of  it,  or 
at  least  some  information  in  respect  to  it.  A  mind  so  strongly 
bent  on  inquiry  as  that  of  the  author  of  the  book  before  us, 
could  hardly  have  failed  to  know  something  of  it,  in  case  he 
lived  as  late  as  the  time  of  Malachi,  when  Plato  was  winning 
renown  among  all  who  visited  Attica,  and  especially  among  all 
who  frequented  the  groves  of  Academus.  It  is  quite  certain 
that  the  Jews  of  Alexandria,  at  a  subsequent  period,  busied 
themselves  much  with  the  works  of  Plato,  for  Philo  Judaeus  was 
so  engrossed  by  the  later  Platonism,  that  it  has  been  said  of  him, 
as  exhibited  in  his  works,  that  "it  is  difficult  to  tell  whether 
Philo platonizes,  or  Plato philonizcs"     From  Egyptian  Jews,  or 

2* 


18  §  1-  GENERAL    NATURE 

other  Jews  living  in  Grecian  cities,  some  knowledge  of  Grecian 
philosophy  might,  and  probably  would,  have  been  attained  by 
Coheleth,  had  he  lived  at  a  period  sufficiently  late.  But  of  any 
such  knowledge  there  is  not  the  least  trace  in  the  book  before  us. 
In  my  own  apprehension,  this  fact  seems  to  favor  two  positions 
in  regard  to  the  book :  (1)  That  the  author  was  not  an  Egyptian 
Jew  of  a  very  late  period,  for  in  this  case  some  reference  would 
appear  in  his  work  to  the  learning  of  the  age  (*.  e.,  the  age  of 
the  first  two  Ptolemies,  323 — 246  b.  a),  and  also  to  the  country. 
(2)  That  he  lived  at  a  period  before  the  Jews  in  Palestine 
became  acquainted,  in  any  good  measure,  with  the  Greek  language 
or  philosophy,  i.  e.,  before  the  periods  when  the  chieftains  of  Al- 
exander's divided  empire  established  themselves  in  all  the  coun- 
tries around  the  eastern  shores  of  the  Mediterranean.  These 
considerations  make  against  the  position,  that  Ecclesiastes  was 
composed  long  after  the  tinie  of  Malachi,  and  more  still  against 
the  supposition  that  it  was  written  after  the  Persian  rule  in  Pal- 
estine had  ceased. 

But,  however  all  this  may  be,  the  fact  is  certain,  that  Coheleth 
exhibits  no  acquaintance  with  Grecian  philosophy.  He  is,  through 
and  through,  a  Palestine- Hebrew,  and  most  probably  an  inhabi- 
tant either  of  Jerusalem,  or  of  its  near  neighborhood.  The 
manner  in  which  he  speaks  of  frequenting  religious  worship  (4 : 
17 — 5  :  1  seq.),  shows  that  he  speaks  of  it  in  a  way  which  would 
be  familiar  to  those  who  frequented  the  temple-service. 

"We  have,  then,  a  work  before  us,  not  of  ontological  and  meta- 
physical speculation,  but  a  work  of  practical  philosophy.  All  the 
reasonings  are  built  on  the  results  of  experience ;  and  all  the 
precepts  which  accompany  them,  are  such  as  have  regard,  not  to 
mere  abstract  truth,  but  to  wary,  considerate,  and  sober  demeanor. 
The  book  begins  and  ends  with  one  and  the  same  theme  ;  and  this 
theme  itself  is  the  result  of  observation  and  experience. 

The  general  truth,  however,  which  constitutes  this  theme,  is 
easily  divisible  into  many  particulars,  and    these  require  illus- 


OF   THE    BOOK.  10 

tration  and  confirmation.  It  was  the  effort  to  accomplish  this 
object,  which  gave  rise  to  the  apparently  variegated  and  subordi- 
nate parts  of  the  work.  The  general  subject  is  turned  round 
and  round ;  and  as  often  as  a  new  aspect  presents  itself,  the 
writer  stops  to  describe,  to  make  comments,  to  show  what  objec- 
tions can  be  made  to  such  a  view,  and  what  can  be  said  to  con- 
firm and  establish  it.  Nor  is  it  the  general  theme  only  which  is 
thus  turned  round  in  order  to  get  a  view  of  its  different  aspects, 
but  the  minor  particulars,  in  their  turn,  are  often  dealt  with  in 
the  same  way ;  so  that  the  mere  cursory  reader  is  apt  to  cherish 
the  apprehension,  that  Coheleth  is  full  of  repetitions.  A  more 
thorough  examination,  however,  by  the  aid  of  competent  critical 
and  philological  knowledge,  will  show  him,  that  what  he  regards 
as  mere  repetitions  of  the  same  thing,  is  nothing  more  nor  less 
than  the  presentation  of  the  same  subject  in  different  attitudes 
and  in  different  relations.  Whatever  there  is,  which  strictly 
speaking  is  really  repeated,  is  some  general  result,  some  ultimate 
truth  —  as  it  were  the  focus,  toward  which  all  the  seemingly 
divergent  rays,  when  traced  back,  will  be  found  to  converge.  It 
needs  much  and  attentive  study  to  attain  to  a  full  perception  of 
this ;  but  with  this  study,  nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  this 
book,  apparently  a  book  of  miscellanies,  assumes  the  form  of  a 
general  unity  ;  and  while  all  its  subordinate  parts  are  interwoven 
by  fine  threads,  that  escape  the  notice  of  the  more  cursory 
observer,  these  are  the  very  things  which  attract  and  highly 
excite  the  attention  of  inquiring  and  discerning  minds.  But  of 
this,  more  will  be  said  in  the  sequel. 

As  a  specimen  of  ancient  philosophy,  the  oldest  and  the  only 
one  among  the  ancient  Hebrews  which  has  come  down  to  us, 
Ecclesiastes  would  seem  to  deserve  the  notice  and  attention  of 
modern  philosophers,  and  specially  of  those  who  undertake  to 
write  the  history  of  ancient  philosophy.  Have  the  Hebrews,  — 
the  only  nation  on  earth,  before  the  Christian  era,  who  had  en. 
lightened  views  of  God  and  of  duty,  —  have  they  no  claim  to  be 


20  §1.   GENERAL  NATURE 

heard  on  the  subject  of  practical  moral  philosophy  ?  If  the  book 
of  Coheleth  were  a  Chinese  production,  or  Mantchou -Tartar,  or 
Japanese,  the  literati  of  Germany  and  France,  if  not  of  England, 
would  break  through  all  the  barriers  thrown  in  their  way  by 
remoteness  of  time  and  strangeness  of  language,  and  with  glow- 
ing zeal  bring  before  the  world  the  important  results  of  their  pro- 
tracted and  laborious  examination  of  it.  Every  year  now  bears 
witness  to  some  feat  of  this  kind,  which  attracts  notice  and  con- 
fers celebrity.  But  Coheleth  —  alas!  who  are  the  philosophers 
that  are  investigating  his  work  ?  Neology  has  indeed  furnished 
some  philologists,  who  have  bestowed  on  this  work,  quite  recently, 
much  and  attentive  study,  and  some  of  it  to  quite  an  important 
purpose.  But  even  here,  the  chief  attraction  seems  to  be  the 
alleged  scepticism  of  the  writer.  These  facts  indicate,  that  there 
is  something  very  attractive  to  them,  in  the  hope  of  finding  the 
ancient  Hebrews  to  have  been  destitute  of  any  belief  in  a  future 
state.  And  as  not  a  few  things  are  said  in  Ecclesiastes,  which 
appear  at  first  view  to  support  such  an  allegation  in  respect  to 
Hebrew  opinion,  the  book  has  lately  become  a  subject,  not  unfre- 
quently,  of  discussion  and  interpretation.  But  beyond  this  class 
of  persons,  the  matter  of  critical  interpretation  sleeps  in  the  same 
quiet  nook,  where  it  laid  itself  down  more  than  a  thousand  years 
ago. 

After  all,  however,  it  is  a  just  subject  of  reproof  to  the  histo- 
rians of  philosophy,  that  a  specimen  of  it  from  a  writer  of  the 
most  truly  enlightened  and  religious  nation  of  all  antiquity, 
should  have  attracted  no  more  of  their  attention  and  regard. 
But  it  is  easier  to  follow  in  the  footsteps  of  the  thousands,  who 
have  written  upon  Plato,  Aristotle,  and  Plotinus,  than  it  is  to 
become  a  sufficient  master  of  the  Hebrew  to  make  a  radical  inves- 
tigation of  the  book  before  us.  It  is  quite  plain  that  the  attrac- 
tions of  speculative,  metaphysical,  and  ontological  philosophy  are 
far  greater,  in  the  view  of  most  philosophical  inquirers,  than 
anything  which  a  practical  and  ethical  philosophy  can  present. 


METHOD  OF  THE   BOOK.  21 

The  sayings  of  the  "earliest  Greek  sages,  in  respect  to  the  nature 
of  things  or  of  men,  rouse  up  more  curiosity  and  excite  more 
interest  than  any  philosopher's  sayings  among  the  Hebrews, 
because  the  Greek  nation  elevated  the  literary  standard  of  the 
world,  while  the  Hebrews  remained  without  any  schools  of  phi- 
losophy, or  any  considerable  cultivation  of  the  arts  and  sciences. 
It  is  to  be  hoped,  that  after  the  literary  race  shall  come  to  a 
pause,  for  want  of  farther  ground  to  move  upon,  that  the  moral 
and  practical  philosophy  of  the  Hebrews  will  begin  to  attract 
more  attention. 

§  2.     Special  Design  and  Method  of  the  Booh. 

I  couple  these  together,  because  it  is  difficult,  if  not  impossible, 
to  separate  them  without  incurring  the  danger  of  frequent  repe- 
tition. 

The  general  nature  of  the  book,  as  being  of  the  ethico-philo- 
sophical  cast,  has  already  been  described.  We  come,  next  in 
order,  to  the  theme,  or  themes,  which  are  discussed. 

The  great  and  appropriate  theme  of  the  whole  book,  is  the 

VANITY  AND  NOTHINGNESS  OF  ALL  EARTHLY  EFFORTS,  PUR- 
SUITS, and  objects.  The  book  commences  with  this,  and  em- 
ploys an  intensity  of  expression  in  stating  it,  that  can  hardly  be 
exceeded :  Vanity  of  vanities  —  vanity  of  vanities,  all  is  vanity. 
The  repetition  of  the  word  vanity  in  the  plur.  Gen.  that  follows 
in  the  first  case,  then  the  repetition  of  the  whole  of  the  same 
phrase,  and  lastly  the  universality  or  extent  of  the  proposition 
{all  is  vanity),  conspire  to  render  the  expression  of  the  main 
theme  the  most  intense  of  which  language  is  capable.  Thus 
commences  the  book  before  us ;  and  after  passing  in  review  a 
multitude  of  particular  things  which  belong  to  this  general  cate- 
gory, the  discussional  part  of  the  book  ends  with  the  same 
declaration  :  vanity  of  vanities  ;  all  is  vanity  !  12:8. 
All  the  intermediate  portions  of  the  book  bear  a  more  or  less 


22  §  2.  SPECIAL  DESIGN  AND 

intimate  connection  with  this  main  theme.  Not  less  than  some 
twenty-three  times  is  the  general  proposition  repeated,  in  the 
same  or  in  equivalent  words,  at  the  close  of  different  illustrations 
and  discussions.1  Like  a  net  of  fine  threads,  this  great  theme  of 
vanity  pervades  or  spreads  over  the  whole  work.  A  minute  and 
close  examination  will  enable  any  one  to  see,  that  the  main  thread 
of  discourse  is  never  lost  sight  of,  however  the  writer  may  seem 
to  make  temporary  excursions.  He  always  returns,  as  true  as 
the  needle  to  the  pole,  to  the  same  stand-point  from  which  he 
started.  His  "  right  hand  would  as  soon  forget  its  cunning,"  as 
he  forsake,  or  even  lose  sight  of,  the  main  object  that  he  has 
in  view.  It  is  only  a  few  years  since  this  trait  of  the  book  be- 
fore us  was  discovered  and  fully  announced.  But  it  can  hardly 
hereafter  be  forgotten. 

But  when  thus  much  is  said  for  the  unity  of  the  book,  it  must 
not  be  too  rigidly  interpreted.  It  is  true,  that  there  are  subordi- 
nate themes  in  the  book,  which  do  not  very  directly,  but  only  more 
remotely,  contribute  to  the  confirmation  of  the  main  theme.  The 
author  of  the  book  before  us  is  far  enough  from  being  a  dull 
proser.  Life  and  animation  reign  throughout.  He  has,  indeed, 
nothing  of  the  technical  and  formal  method  of  the  schoolmen  and 
mere  logicians ;  for  his  book  is  anything  rather  than  an  enumera- 
tion of  particulars  in  regular  logical  sequeney.  He  comes  upon 
us  unexpectedly  at  times,  with  a  theme  apparently  incongruous 
and  irrelative,  and  we  feel  for  the  moment  that  we  are  thrown 
off  from  our  track.  But  he  soon  shows  us  that  he  is  only  tem- 
porarily diverging  from  the  main  line,  thus  giving  a  striking 
variety  in  his  particulars,  and  avoiding  the  dulness  of  a  slow  and 
uniform  movement.  He  casts  a  look  at  everything,  in  passing ; 
and  sometimes  he  stops  a  moment,  in  order  to  take  observation 
of  a  new  occurrence  or  a  new  object,  and  then  resumes  his  course. 


1  E  <:.  1  :  14,  17.  2  :  1,  11,  15,  17,  19,  21,  23,  26.  3  :  19.  4:4,  8,  16.  5:9. 
6  :2,  9,  11.  7:6.  S  :  10,  14.   11  :  8,  10. 


METHOD  OF  THE  BOOK.  23 

Hence  it  comes,  that  the  reader  who  does  not  thoroughly  inves- 
tigate and  understand  his  plan,  may  be  disposed  to  complain  of 
his  apparently  discursive  and  miscellaneous  method  of  composi- 
tion;  but  a  closer  examination  will  bring  him  to  see  that  the 
author  has  not  forgotten  what  he  set  out  to  do,  nor  turned  aside 
from  it,  except  in  cases  where  additional  interest  could  be  given 
to  the  whole  by  special  notice  of  some  particular  and  interesting 
objects  which  lie  near  to  the  way  where  he  is  passing. 

The  number  of  things  which  he  specifically  presents  to  our 
view  as  vanities,  is  not  indeed  very  great.  But  he  evidently 
designs  that  those  which  he  presents  should  be  regarded  as  spe- 
cimens of  all  the  rest,  which  are  of  a  kindred  nature  and  are  not 
mentioned.  This  is  apparent  from  the  declaration  at  the  begin- 
ning and  end  of  the  book,  viz.,  that  all  is  vanity.  But  those 
objects  which  are  presented,  are  seldom  dismissed  without  show- 
ing them  in  their  various  aspects  and  relations.  For  example ; 
avarice,  or  the  greedy  pursuit  of  gain,  is  repeatedly  brought  to 
view.  First,  we  have  it  illustrated  in  the  experiments  which 
Coheleth  made  in  his  kingly  state,  in  order  to  find  some  stable 
and  enduring  good,  2  :  7,  8.  The  heaping  up  of  treasures  in  its 
highest  extent  he  found  to  be  vanity.  It  would  not  —  it  could 
not  —  confer  the  happiness  desired.  Then,  again,  we  are  pre- 
sented with  some  of  the  positive  evils  which  attend  greediness 
for  gain,  2  :  18 — 23.  After  much  toil  and  vexation,  a  man  must 
leave  all  which  he  has  acquired  to  some  one  who  never  contri- 
buted in  the  least  to  acquire  it.  He  next  brings  to  view  severe 
and  dexterous  toil  for  riches,  which  attracts  the  envy  of  others 
around  the  successful  man,  4:4.  He  then  presents  a  solitary 
man,  without  child  or  brother,  laboring  ceaselessly  to  acquire  that 
which  he  can  bestow  on  no  one  whom  he  cares  for,  or  who  cares 
for  him,  4  :  8.  The  evils  of  such  a  state  of  seclusion  and  lonely 
toil,  he  illustrates  by  several  proverbial  apothegms,  4:9 — 12. 
After  this,  he  presents  a  case,  in  which  there  is  excessive  toil  to 
provide  for  children,  and  yet  all  is  lost  by  casualty,  or  misfortune, 


24  §2.   SPECIAL  DESIGN  AND 

or  mismanagement,  5  :  13 — 17.  Another  view  of  the  subject  is, 
the  case  where  riches  fall  into  the  hands  of  strangers,  instead  of 
being  inherited  by  children,  6:2.  It  is  easy,  with  a  little  atten- 
tion, to  see  that  each  of  these  developments  is  attended  with  its 
own  peculiarities  and  grievances,  while  all,  when  traced  back,  are 
found  to'be  united  in  one  central  point,  viz.  the  utter  insufficiency 
of  riches  to  procure  solid  and  lasting  happiness. 

Several  subjects  are  dealt  with  in  like  manner,  and  although 
they  are  repeatedly  brought  before  us,  yet  they  are  placed  each 
time  in  a  different  attitude  and  in  new  relations  ;  and  it  soon  be- 
comes evident  that  they  are  insisted  on  so  frequently,  not  because 
the  author  is  in  want  of  something  to  say,  but  because  of  their 
relative  importance  to  his  main  object. 

But  one  source  of  evil  to  man  seems  to  bear  upon  his  mind 
with  more  galling,  if  not  heavier,  weight  than  any  other,  viz,, 
civil  oppression.  If  there  be  any  one  thing  which  urges  him, 
beyond  all  the  rest,  to  be  dissatisfied  with,  or  to  doubt,  the  doe- 
trine  that  wickedness  speedily  brings  punishment,  it  is  the  per- 
mission and  toleration  of  oppressive  and  wicked  rulers.  The 
first  glance  he  takes  of  the  subject,  is  directed  toward  the  bench 
of  justice,  or  at  least  toward  the  place  where  justice  is  looked  for, 
and  with  right  expected.  There  he  finds  wickedness  to  be  seated, 
and  iniquity  to  take  the  place  of  righteousness,  3:16.  His  first 
emotion,  called  forth  by  pious  feelings,  bids  him  to  hope  that  God 
will  bring  oppressors  to  judgment,  3  :  17.  But  still  farther  con- 
templation of  the  spectacle  makes  him  almost  to  despair  of  the 
destinies  of  man,  and  to  feel  that  Heaven  designs  men  to  know 
that  they  are  little  if  any  better  than  the  beasts,  3 :  18 — 21.  In 
the  midst  of  this,  however,  he  essays  to  comfort  himself  with  the 
thought,  that  man,  although  perishable,  can  after  all  have  some 
enjoyment  at  least  in  the  fruit  of  his  labors.  But  then  a  renewed 
look  at  the  effects  of  oppression,  at  "  the  tears  of  the  oppressed 
who  had  no  comforter,"  and  the  consideration  that  "  on  the  side 
of  the  oppressors  was  power,"  bring  him  again  to  a  state  of  des- 


METHOD   OF  THE  BOOK.  25 

pair,  even  so  as  to  count  death  more  desirable  than  life,  and  to 
wish  that  he  had  never  been  born,  4 :  1 — 3.  Grievous  indeed 
must  have  been  the  oppression  under  which  he  groaned,  when  it 
forced  from  him  such  outbursts  of  feeling  as  these.  After  des- 
canting on  the  vanity  of  a  greedy  desire  for  riches  —  and  with 
this  the  oppression  of  rulers  in  their  exactions  naturally  connects 
itself — his  mind  again  recurs  to  the  ruler  of  his  land,  of  whom 
he  speaks  in  terms  of  great  severity :  "  Better  is  a  poor  and  a 
wise  child,  than  an  old  and  foolish  king,  who  will  no  more  be  ad- 
monished," 4:13.  He  next  brings  the  subject  of  religious  duties 
into  view,  and  seems  to  return  from  the  consideration  of  these, 
with  his  excitement  somewhat  abated,  and  in  a  state  of  more  calm 
reflection.  He  says,  that  if  one  "  sees  the  oppression  of  the  poor 
and  violent  perverting  of  judgment  and  justice,"  he  must  repress 
his  wonder  by  the  reflection,  that  there  is  One  higher  than  the 
highest  earthly  magistrate,  who  will  take  cognizance  of  the  matter, 
5  :  8.  In  ch.  7  :  7,  he  touches  again  on  the  subject,  and  seems  to 
set  forth  more  fully  the  bitter  consequences  of  oppression,  by  de- 
claring that  "  it  renders  those  madmen  who  practise  it,  and  that 
bribes  destroy  their  understanding."  But  here  a  caution  is  intro- 
duced against  being  hastily  provoked  by  oppression,  and  against 
comparing  the  present  oppressive  times  with  former  and  better 
days,  from  which  no  good  can  come,  7  :  8 — 10.  Again  he  sees 
';  the  just  perishing  by  his  righteousness,  and  the  wicked  prolong- 
ing his  days  by  wickedness,"  7:15.  That  is,  the  one  falls  a  vic- 
tim to  the  anger  or  the  avarice  of  the  ruler,  and  the  other  buys 
himself  off  from  the  retributions  of  justice  when  it  threatens  to 
overtake  him.  Yet  even  here,  he  prudently  cautions  against  be- 
lieving every  report  that  is  whispered  about  respecting  rulers, 
7:  21,  22.  He  well  knew  that  such  matters  are  wont  to  be  ex- 
aggerated. But  caution  of  this  nature,  as  he  thinks,  may  be  car- 
ried too  far.  To  illustrate  this,  he  introduces  one  counselling  to 
yield  universal  and  implicit  obedience  to  the  ruler,  and  this  as  the 
only  means  of  safety,  because  the  power  is  in  his  hands  and  he 

3 


26  §2.   ^TECIAL    DESIGN    AND 

can  punish  at  pleasure,  8  :  2 — 4.  But  to  this  he  answers,  that 
such  undistinguishing  obedience,  rendered  through  selfish  fear  of 
consequences,  must  lead  one  to  do  that  which  is  evil ;  and  that  it 
is  better  to  call  to  mind  that  there  is  a  time  when  all  the  actions 
of  men  will  be  judged,  and  both  the  wicked  ruler,  and  his  obedi- 
ent subject,  who  was  willing  to  do  wrong  at  his  bidding,  will  be 
tried  and  rewarded,  because  that  none  can  escape  the  dread  sea- 
son of  reckoning,  8  :  5 — 8.  He  sees,  indeed,  that  one  rules  over 
another  to  his  great  injury  ;  but  in  looking  farther  on,  he  sees  the 
wicked  carried  out  from  the  city  to  the  tomb,  and  anticipates  that 
the  memory  of  him  will  soon  perish,  8:9,  10.  The  passionate 
and  overbearing  demeanor  of  rulers  is  next  alluded  to  (10  :  4), 
and  caution  given  against  manifesting  offence  at  it  in  their 
presence.  That  arbitrary  power,  which  sets  folly  on  the  seat  of 
dignity,  which  puts  servants  upon  horses  and  makes  princes  to 
walk  on  foot  as  their  waiters,  is  next  brought  under  view,  10 : 
5 — 7.  By  various  proverbial  sayings,  he  illustrates  the  impor- 
tance of  a  wise  and  discreet  demeanor,  on  occasions  when  such 
things  are  presented  to  view  ;  specially  does  he  recommend  dis- 
cretion in  regard  to  what  one  says  on  such  occasions,  for  his 
words,  if  they  be  severe,  may  be  fatal  in  their  consequences,  1-0  : 
12 — 14.  Still,  his  own. heart  is  deeply  grieved  at  the  evil;  and 
be  breaks  out  into  the  pathetic  exclamation  :  "  Woe  to  thee,  O 
land,  when  thy  king  is  a  child,  and  thy  princes  feast  in  {lie  morn- 
ing!" 10  :  16,  t\  e.,  when  thy  king  is  incapable  of  governing  with 
discretion,  and  thy  princes  are  luxurious  and  profligate.  It  would 
seem  that  the  old  and  foolish  king,  mentioned  in  4  :  13,  as  then 
reigning  had  now  deceased,  and  had  been  succeeded  by  a  mere 
child.  Matters,  as  it  appears,  had  grown  no  better  —  the  king 
WHS  now  an  imbecile,  the  nobles  profligate.  In  fact,  the  whole  of 
Chapter  X.  is  occupied  with  the  subject  of  bad  and  incompetent 
rulers,  who  are  represented  (vs.  18,  10)  as  slothful,  and  as  being 
is  and  drunkards.     This  is  the  la  I  i  ion  of  his  views 

and  feelings  in  regard  to  this  "sore  evil;"  and  here,  although  his 


M  ISTHOD    OF    THE    BOOK.  27 

heart  is  beating  high  with  scorn  and  indignation,  he  still  protests 
against  '"cursing  the  king,"  even  in  the  most  retired  and  secret 
places;  for,  in  some  way  unexpected,  that  king  may  come  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  curses  uttered,  and  this  will  bring  additional 
evil  upon  the  malcontent. 

This  now,  with  the  preceding  case  of  avarice,  may  serve  fully 
to  illustrate  my  remarks  on  the  alleged  discursive  method  of 
Coheleth,  and  the  repetitions  which  are  charged  upon  him. 
Here,  half  a  score  of  times  and  more,  the  subject  of  civil  oppres- 
sion and  wicked  rulers  is  brought  to  view.  Yet,  no  two  of  these 
representations  are  alike.  Each  time  something  is  added  to  the 
strength  of  the  impression  already  made  by  the  writer.  This, 
then,  can  hardly  be  deemed  mere  repetition.  On  the  contrary, 
since  the  subject  is  not  presented  as  a  whole  at  any  one  time  and 
place,  it  behooved  the  writer,  since  he  laid  the  matter  so  much  to 
heart,  gradually  to  till  out  the  entire  picture. 

The  examples  now  produced  will  illustrate  the  method  of  Cohe- 
leth sufficiently  for  our  present  purpose.  We  may  deduce  from 
them  conclusions,  in  regard  to  the  manner  in  which  some  other 
topics,  particularly  that  of  wisdom,  are  treated  in  this  book.  In 
one  sense,  the  composition  is  fragmentary,  i.  e.,  different  portions 
or  attitudes  of  a  subject  are  introduced  here  and  there  with  vari- 
ous interruptions,  and  never  continuously  so  as  to  exhaust  the 
subject  in  any  one  passage.  In  another  sense,  it  is  far  from  being 
fragmentary.  It  is  no  compound  of  scraps,  one  here  and  another 
there,  just  as  the  writer  might  happen  to  light  upon  them,  or  to 
devise  them.  It  is  far  remote  from  being  a  mere  CoUectaneum, 
like  Robert  Southey's  memorandum-book,  or  like  the  great  mass 
of  scrap-books.  The  seeming  fragments  are,  after  all,  only  por- 
tions or  particulars  of  one  great  whole,  and  more  or  less  remotely 
stand  related  to  it,  or  have  a  bearing  upon  it.  Those  who  have 
not  thoroughly  examined  the  book  will  be  slow,  perhaps,  to  be- 
lieve this.  Before  they  get  through  the  Commentary  that  follows, 
however,  I  would  fain  hope  that  they  will  be  ready  to  admit  it. 


23  §2.   SPECIAL  DESIGN  AND 

No  impression  is  more  common,  than  that  Cchelcth  is  like  to 
the  book  of  Proverbs,  in  its  manner  and  method ;  and  yet  this  is 
far,  very  far,  from  the  truth.  Even  De  Wette  says,  that  "  this 
book  attaches  itself,  in  every  respect,  to  the  gnomohgical  and 
didactic  poetry  of  the  Hebrews,"  Einl.  §  282.  Instead  of  saving 
(with  him)  in  every  respect,  I  should  be  nearer  the  truth  if  I 
said  :  In  no  respect.  This,  indeed,  would  be  going  too  far  ;  but 
let  us  examine  and  see  how  much  is,  or  is  not,  true.  As  to  po dry, 
if  parallelism  be  a  necessary  ingredient  of  this,  then  there  is  little 
or  none  of  it  here.  In  a  few  solitary  cases,  where  apothegms  are 
quoted,  and  applied  to  the  subject  in  hand,  we  find  the  usual  form 
of  Hebrew  proverbs,  i.  e.,  parallelism.  But  they  belong,  not  to 
the  writer  of  the  book,  but  to  the  maxims  which  he  quotes.  In 
one  description,  viz.,  that  of  old  age,  in  chap,  xii.,  the  writer  does 
indeed  border  very  closely  on  Hebrew  poetry ;  or  rather,  it  is 
altogether  poetry  in  the  spirit  of  the  composition,  and  it  is  nearly 
so  in  the  form  of  the  sentences.  But  this  comprises  only  seven 
verses,  12  :  1 — 7.  Elsewhere  there  is,  now  and  then,  a  kind  of 
couplet,  in  which  contrast  is  presented,  or  some  special  analogy ; 
and  this  of  course  assumes  nearly  the  form  of  poetry  in  respect 
to  parallelism.  But  so  it  would  do,  in  a  writing  merely  prosaic. 
"With  these  exceptions,  all  is  prose,  mere  prose,  without  any 
attempt  to  soar  on  the  wings  of  the  Muse. 

That  the  book  is  didactic,  I  freely  admit.  But  this  does  not 
necessarily  make  it  poetic.  Some  of  the  later  prophets  are  didac- 
tic ;  the  evangelists  are  didactic;  Paul  is  didactic;  but  none  of 
these  writers  are  poets. 

There  is  some  foundation  for  asserting  that  the  book  has 
a  gnomohgical  cast;  and  yet  very  much  less  than  De  TTette 
seems  to  suppose.  Gnomes  are  sententiae,  proverbs,  maxims, 
apothegms,  i.  c.,  short  and  pithy  saying3.  The  book  of  Proverbs, 
for  example,  i-  made  up  of  these,  from  chip.  x.  on  to  the  end  of 
the  book.  The  distinguishing  trait  of  them  all  is,  that  they  are 
isolated,  and  are  without  any  unity  or  bond  of  alliance,  excepting 


METHOD   OF  THE  BOOK.  29 

that  all  are  of  a  proverbial  nature.  Rarely  can  more  than  two 
verses  be  found,  where  the  same  subject  is  continued;  generally 
it  is  dispatched  in  one  verse,  which  for  the  most  part  consists  of 
parallelism,  and  therefore  takes  the  form  of  poetry.  How  differ- 
ent is  the  case  in  Coheleth  !  Here  an  under-current  never  fails. 
The  whole  is  pervaded  by  that  solemn  and  monitory  truth  :  All 
is  vanity.  Discursive,  in  a  measure,  are  some  of  the  remarks 
that  are  made ;  yet  seldom  do  they  go  beyond  quite  narrow 
bounds.  But  what  all-pervading  unity  is  there  in  the  book  of 
Proverbs  ?  Certainly  none.  Nearly  every  verse  is  unlike  its 
nearest  neighbor.  There  are,  indeed,  apothegms  in  Coheleth. 
But  they  arc  pearls  strung  upon  one  and  the  same  string.  When 
they  assume  a  poetic  form  (parallelism),  they  are  evidently  quo- 
tations and  not  matters  of  the  writer's  own  device. 

In  illustration  of  what  has  just  been  said,  I  would  refer  to 
chap.  10  :  8 — 11.  Here  are  four  verses  in  succession,  which  at 
first  view  seem  to  be  not  only  independent  of  each  other,  but  also 
of  the  context.      They  run  thus  : 

(8)  lie  who  diggeth  a  ditch  may  fall  into  it ;  he  who  breaketh  down 
a  wall,  a  serpent  may  bite  him.  (9)  He  who  pluckcth  up  stones  may 
be  annoyed  by  them;  he  who  cleaveth  wood  will  be  endangered 
thereby.  (10)  If  one  has  dulled  the  iron,  and  there  is  no  edge,  he 
swings  it  so  that  he  may  increase  the  force;  an  advantage  is  the  dex- 
terous use  of  wisdom.  (11)  If  the  serpent  bite  without  enchantment, 
then  is  there  no  advantage  to  him  that  hath  a  tongue. 

In  the  context  it  is  said  that  a  little  folly  is  ruinous  to  wisdom ; 
that  wisdom  or  sagacity  will  be  dexterous  in  the  application  of 
proper  means  to  guard  against  evil.  It  adduces  as  a  signal  ex- 
ample of  folly,  the  conduct  of  kings  who  put  high  personages  in 
low  places,  and  low  personages  in  high  places.  All  this  and  the 
like,  as  the  writer  means  to  intimate,  wisdom  would  teach  a  con- 
siderate man  to  void.  Still  farther  to  illustrate  the  principle  in 
question,  he  quotes  the  various  apothegms  above  exhibited,  in 


30  |  2.  SPECIAL  DESIGN  AND 

which  it  is  shown  that,  even  in  the  most  common  affairs  of  life, 
the  want  of  wise  precaution  will  occasion  mischief.  They  all 
differ,  indeed,  specifically  from  each  other,  but  all  have  a  unity 
of  object  in  view.  This  object  is  developed  in  the  final  clause 
of  v.  10,  which  declares,  that  "the  dexterous  use  of  wisdom  is  an 
advantage.'''  This  is  doubtless  intended  as  a  key  to  the  whole  of 
the  seemingly  unconnected  passage  which  sounds  as  if  one  were 
reading  merely  in  a  book  of  proverbs.  Yet  even  v.  11,  at  the 
close  of  the  apothegms,  is  clearly  of  the  same  tenor  as  the  rest. 
The  meaning  plainly  is,  that  he  who  has  a  tongue  that  can  en- 
chant, should  be  wise  enough  to  employ  it  to  purpose,  at  a  time 
when  he  is  in  danger  from  serpents  ;  otherwise  his  tongue  of  en- 
chantment is  of  no  use  to  him,  because  he  lacks  wisdom  to  know 
when  to  use  it.  After  all  this,  the  author  goes  on  to  show  how 
often  and  how  easily  the  words  of  a  fool  injure  him,  for  want  of 
discretion  or  wisdom. 

In  all  this,  now,  the  most  prominent  of  all  the  apothegmatic 
passages  in  Coheleth,  there  is  not  a  single  instance  in  which  the 
proverb  is  quoted  for  its  own  sake,  but  merely  to  illustrate  the 
sentiment  of  the  writer,  that,  even  in  the  most  common  concerns 
and  transactions  of  life,  discretion  and  foresight  are  needed,  in 
order  to  avoid  danger,  and  to  make  undertakings  successful. 

Let  us  now  adduce  another  example,  that  will  show  the  man- 
ner in  which  a  single  apothegm  is  quoted,  merely  for  the  purpose 
of  illustrating  a  sentiment  of  the  text.  In  7  :  1,  we  find  the 
declaration  :  "  A  good  name  is  better  than  precious  ointment.'' 
But  why  say  this  ?  The  writer  had  been  saying  nothing  about 
the  desirableness  or  importance  of  a  good  name.  The  sentiment 
in  itself  seems  wholly  foreign  to  his  purpose.  It  is  so,  in  fact,  as 
it  regards  what  he  has  already  said,  but  not  so  in  regard  to  what 
he  is  going  to  say;  for  he  immediately  subjoins  to  the  declara- 
tion: "  The  day  of  death  [is  better)  than  the  day  of  one's  birth." 
The  two  parts  of  the  verse  are  members  of  a  comparison.  What 
is  mj'ant,  is  simply  this  :  "The  day  of  one's  death   is   as   much 


METHOD   OF  THE   BOOK.  31 

better  than  that  of  his  birth,  as  a  good  name  is  better  than  pre- 
cious ointment."  Yet  between  the  members  of  this  comparison, 
there  is  no  particle  of  similitude  inserted  (e.  g.  3  as,  or  ya  better 
than).  But  here  is  a  fair  specimen  of  the  peculiar  idiom  of  the 
Hebrew.  In  scores  of  cases,  perhaps  even  in  the  greater  num- 
ber, where  comparison  is  made,  there  is  no  other  particle  em- 
ployed but  I. ,  which,  in  such  cases,  should  be  rendered  and  so. 
Our  translators  seem  to  have  been  in  a  great  measure  unac- 
quainted with  this  peculiar  idiom  of  the  language ;  and  conse- 
quently, they  have  often  given  an  appearance  of  incongruity  to 
expressions  in  English,  where  mere  comparison  is  aimed  at  in 
the  Hebrew.-  Almost  everywhere,  in  the  book  of  Proverbs,  have 
they  seemed  to  overlook  this  distinctive  idiom,  in  regard  to  the 
particle  in  question.  The  Hebrews  said:  "  Such  a  thing  is  so  or 
so ;  and  such  another  thing  is  so  or  so,"  when  the  meaning  is 
simply:  "As  such  a  thing  is,  so  is  such  another  thing."  How 
many  apparent  difficulties  of  the  sacred  text  would  be  easily 
solved,  by  a  correct  view  of  this  principle,  the  attentive  and  crit- 
ical reader  may  easily  discern.  In  the  case  above,  it  is  no  part 
of  the  writer's  object  to  teach  us  simply  that  fame  is  better  than 
perfumed  oil ;  for  although  it  be  true,  yet  by  itself  it  is  not  ap- 
posite here,  and  in  itself  it  would  hardly  need  inspiration  to  teach 
it,  nor  would  it  add  much  to  the  didactics  of  the  book.  But  this 
common  and  well-known  proverb  is  cited  for  the  purpose  of  illus- 
trating a  much  graver  sentiment,  to  which  all  readers  would  not 
so  readily  accede.  When  this  purpose  is  answered,  the  design 
of  quoting  the  proverb  is  fully  accomplished. 

Again  ;  in  chap.  10:1,  we  have  a  declaration,  that  seems  more 
remote  still  from  the  context,  and  which  almost  startles  one,  at 
first,  by  its  apparent  incongruity.  It  runs  thus:  "Dead  flies 
make  the  ointment  of  the  apothecary  to  stink ;  to  ferment,  —  a 
little  folly  is  more  weighty  than  wisdom,  and  al?o  than  what  is 
costly."  Plainly,  the  first  clause  is  not  cited  for  the  sake  of  dis- 
closing the  physical  fact  or  truth  in  question  ;  for  this  was  of 


32  §2.    STECIAL    DESIGN    AND 

small  moment,  and  -wholly  foreign  to  the  writer's  object.  But  this 
acknowledged  physical  truth  is  adduced  because  it  affords  a  strik- 
ing ground  of  comparison.  The  plain  sentiment  of  the  "whole  is  : 
"As  dead  flies  —  those  little  insignificant  animals  —  will  corrupt 
and  destroy  the  most  precious  ointment,  so  a  little  of  folly  will 
mar  all  the  plans  of  wisdom,  and  prevent  any  advantage  from 
them."  The  sequel  brings  to  view  many  cases,  where  the  want 
of  wisdom,  or  rather  a  little  of  positive  folly,  ruins  undertakings 
of  many  different  kinds. 

The  examples  produced  are  sufficient  for  our  present  purpose. 
They  are  a  fair  specimen  of  all  the  proverbs  contained  in  Cohe- 
leth.  How  then  can  we  concede  to  De  Wette,  that,  on  the  ground 
of  such  apothegms  —  which  after  all  are  not  very  numerous  — 
this  book  —  Ecclesiastes  —  must  in  every  respect  be  classed  with 
the  gnomological  writings  of  the  Hebrews  ?  When  Solomon 
writes  proverbs,  or  selects  them,  he  does  so  for  their  own"  sake, 
i.  e.}  because  of  the  instruction  which  they  are  designed  to  con- 
vey of  and  in  themselves.  But  this  Coheleth  never  does.  The 
primary  meaning  of  them  is  not  what  he  designs  to  inculcate  ; 
but,  taking  this  as  a  conceded  truth,  he  builds  on  it  a  comparison 
o:  illustration. 

Had  I)e  Wette  said  merely,  that  the  style  of  Coheleth  in  many 
respects  resembles  that  of  the  gnomological  books  of  the  He- 
brews, he  would  have  said  what  is  evident  on  the  very  first 
opening  of  the  book.  Everywhere  this  presents  itself.  For 
example : 

(Chap.  7:4.)  The  heart  of  the  wise  is  in  the  house  of  mourning, 
but  tlic  heart  of  the  fool  is  in  the  house  of  mirth.  (5)  It  is  better  to 
hear  the  rehuke  of  the  wise,  than  for  a  man  to  hear  the  song  of  fools. 
(7)  Surely  oppression  maketh  mad  a  wise  man,  and  a  gift  destroyeth 
art.  (-S)  Better  is  the  end  of  a  thing,  than  the  beginning 
thereof;  the  patient  in  spirit  is  better  than  the  proud  in  spirit.  (9) 
Be  Dot  hasty  in  thy  spirit  to  be  angry,  for  anger  resteth  in  the  bosom 
of  fools. 


METHOD  OF  THE   BOOK.  S3 

(Chap.  10  :  13).  The  beginning  of  the  words  of  his  [the  fooiV] 
mouth  is  foll}r,  and  the  ending  of  his  mouth  is  grievous  madness.  (1  !) 
The  ibol  multiplieth  words,  when  no  man  ean  know  what  shall  be  ;  for 
what  shall  be  after  him,  who  ean  tell  ?  (Chap.  11:1.)  Cast  thy  bread 
upon  the  waters,  for  after  many  days  thou  shalt  find  it.  (2)  Make  a 
portion  into  seven,  and  even  into  eight,  for  thou  knowest  not  evil 
which  shall  be  on  earth.  (4)  He  who  watcheth  the  wind  will  not  sow, 
and  he  who  observeth  the  clouds  will  not  reap.  (7)  Truly  the  light  is 
sweet,  and  a  pleasant  thing  it  is  for  the  eyes  to  behold  the  light  of  the 
sun.  (0)  Rejoice,  O  young  man,  in  thy  youth,  and  let  thine  heart 
cheer  thee  in  the  days  of  thine  early  life  ;  and  walk  thou  in  the  way 
of  thy  desire,  and  by  the  sight  of  thine  eyes.  (10)  Put  away  vexation 
from  thy  heart,  and  remove  evil  from  thy  flesh. 

These  are  striking  specimens  of  the  sententious.  But  these 
might  be  increased  by  many  more,  from  almost  all  parts  of  the 
book.  Their  first  appearance  is  that  of  mere  gnomes.  A  closer 
examination,  however,  shows  that  beneath  them  all  there  is  an 
under-current.  Unlike  the  Book  of  Proverbs,  they  all  refer  to 
some  position  which  is  designed  to  be  illustrated  or  confirmed. 

It  should  be  remembered,  in  a  critique  on  the  style  of  Cohe- 
letli  or  his  method  of  writing,  that  the  book  is  not  one  of  narra- 
tion or  history.  The  only  part  which  approaches  narration  is  a 
portion  of  chap,  ii.,  which  relates  Coheleth's  experience.  But 
even  here,  the  style  approaches  the  sententious.  The  rest  is 
philosophizing.  Not  a  treatise  on  moral  philosophy  ;  not  a  digest 
of  practical  and  ethical  science,  orderly  and  consecutively  laid 
down ;  nor  yet,  on  the  other  hand,  a  mere  mass  of  miscellany. 
There  is  a  plan  —  an  evident  plan  or  design  —  running  through 
the  whole.  But  one  must  not  look  for  a  chapter  of  Dr.  Paley's 
moral  philosophy  here,  or  of  Reinhardt's  science  of  ethics.  The 
Aristotelian  logic  was  not  in  fashion  among  the  Hebrews,  and 
probably  would  not  have  been,  had  our  author  lived  five  hundred 
years  earlier  than  he  did.  Successive  syllogisms,  in  logical  suc- 
cession and  continuity,  are  not  to  be  found  in  the  Hebrew  writings. 


34  §2.   SPECIAL  DESIGN  AND 

Even  the  discourses  of  Christ  himself  do  not  exhibit  them  ;  and 
Paul,  the  greatest  logician  of  all  the  sacred  writers,  even  in  (he 
epistles  to  the  Romans,  Galatians,  and  Hebrews,  has  nothing  that 
even  approaches  the  school-logic,  Nothing  can  be  more  diverse 
from  such  methods  of  argument  as  Paley,  Locke,  Bentley,  and 
WheweU  employ,  than  the  whole  mass  of  the  Hebrew  writings, 
earlier  and  later.  The  Hebrews  address  the  understanding  and  the 
heart  directly  with  the  declarations  of  truth,  and  never  rely  on 
any  syllogistic  concatenations  of  reasoning.  And  what  all  others 
do,  Coheleth  does.  He  brings  one  matter  and  another  before 
us  ;  says  something  important  and  to  be  remembered  concerning 
it ;  and  then  passes  on  to  other  kindred  subjects.  When  occasion 
prompts,  he  calls  up  again  the  same  subject,  and  says  some- 
thing else  about  it,  equally  to  be  remembered.  And  it  is  thus 
that  Coheleth  moralizes  and  philosophizes,  through  his  whole 
book. 

It  is  evident  from  the  nature  of  the  book  —  a  book  of  practi- 
cal ethical  philosophy  —  that  there  must  be,  in  some  respects,  a 
diction  peculiar  to  itself;  I  mean,  that  language  adapted  to  philos- 
ophy must  be  employed.  Hence  many  words  in  the  book,  which 
are  not  elsewhere  found  in  the  Hebrew.  To  this  account,  I  can 
hardly  doubt,  not  a  few  of  the  words  may  be  put,  which  are 
classed  by  Knobel  and  others  among  the  later  or  the  latest  He- 
brew. AVe  shall  see,  on  another  occasion,  that  there  are  serious 
difficulties  in  the  way  of  a  part  of  this  classification,  inasmuch  as 
the  Phenician  monuments  exhibit  many  such  words,  which  must 
of  course  have  belonged  to  the  older  Hebrew. 

I  have  stated,  at  the  beginning  of  this  section,  the  great  and 
leading  design  of  the  book  before  us.  The  vanity  and  utter  in- 
sufficiency of  all  earthly  pursuits  and  objects  to  confer  solid  and 
lasting  happiness,  is  the  theme  with  which  the  book  begins  and 
ends;  and  which,  as  we  have  seen,  spreads  as  a  network  over  all 
Tmediate  and  subordinate  parts.  But  there  are  other  ob- 
I  <;  in  view,  besides  the  illustration  and  confirmation  of  this 


METHOD  OF  THE  BOOK.  3o 

groat  proposition.  The  writer  not  only  presents  us  with  the  pic- 
tures  of  many  of  the  trials  and  disappointments  of  life,  but  also 
instructs  his  readers  how  to  demean  themselves  when  these  occur. 
Doubtless  this  is  second  only  to  the  main  object  of  the  work.  It 
would  have  been  of  little  avail  to  convince  men  in  what  a  vain 
and  perishing  world  they  live  —  for  their  own  experience  and 
observation  would  teach  them  this  ;  —  he  felt  it  incumbent  on  him 
to  tell  them  also  what  they  should  do,  when  placed  in  this  dan- 
ger or  that,  in  this  trial  and  state  of  suffering  or  in  that,  amid 
these  disappointments  and  those.  Salutary  in  a  high  degree  are 
many  of  his  precepts.  They  are  instinct  with  life,  and  clothed 
with  energy  of  language  ;  and  springing,  as  they  usually  do,  from 
the  occasion  of  the  moment,  are  destitute  of  all  the  formality,  the 
stiffness,  and  the  tameness  of  a  string  of  ordinary  moral  and 
practical  precepts. 

That  the  writer  was  a  nice  observer  of  human  life  and  -actions, 
as  well  as  of  the  nature  and  course  of  things,  no  one  will  deny. 
That  he  had  moral  and  practical  ends  in  view,  subservient  to 
sober,  cautious,  and  prudent  demeanor ;  that  he  was  penetrated 
with  the  deepest  reverence  for  God,  and  inculcates  the  most  un- 
qualified confidence  in  him  and  submission  to  him,  lies  in  open 
day  and  on  the  very  face  of  his  work.  That  he  was  no  Epicu- 
rean, no  Fatalist  (in  the  heathen  sense),  and  on  the  great  points  of 
morality  and  of  religion  no  sceptic,  will  appear  quite  clear,  as  it 
seems  to  me,  to  every  attentive  and  candid  reader.  To  the  nu- 
merous charges  preferred  against  him  in  these  respects,  the  result 
of  hasty  one-sided  views  of  his  book,  the  Commentary  will,  as  I 
hope  and  trust,  be  a  sufficient  refutation. 

That  a  great  variety  of  precept  —  moral,  prudential,  and  reli- 
gious—  should  be  the  result  of  his  plan,  is  evident.  Instead  of 
embodying  in  one  series  the  directions  which  he  gives,  as  results 
of  his  various  investigations  and  reflection,  —  which  is  what  most 
writers  of  our  day  would  do,  —  he  everywhere  intermingles  his 
advice  or  commands  with  the   occasions  that   prompted   them. 


3G  §2.   SPECIAL  DESIGN  AND 

Whether  logical  or  not,  it  will  be  conceded  by  every  discerning 
reader,  that  the  author  has  taken  the  best  method  to  produce  the 
strongest  and  most  lasting  impression  on  the  mind.  Many  a 
maxim  will  be  remembered  from  the  spirited  manner  in  which  it 
is  announced,  and  many  a  reader  will  be  kept  wide  awake  with 
his  vivacity  and  energy,  who  would  nod  over  formally  correct, 
but  dull  and  tame  pages. 

Many  and  discrepant  opinions  have  been  brought  forward, 
respecting  the  nature  and  design  of  Coheleth.  Most  of  the  later 
German  writers  charge  him  with  scepticism  and  with  unbelief  in 
a  future  state  of  existence.  Even  Umbreit,  from  whom  we 
should  expect  something  different,  has  written  a  volume,  which  is 
entitled  Coheleth  Scepticus  de  summo  bono.  But  De  Wette  has 
far  outstripped  him.  He  says:  "The  doctrine  of  retribution, 
which  constitutes  the  religious  element  of  the  book,  has  many 
strong  doubts  to  contend  with,  and  these  his  own  experience  of 

misfortunes  helped  to  supply The  more  unhappy  the  times 

were,  and  the  more  they  led  to  despair,  the  more  also  that  belief 
and  animation  grew  cold,  the  stronger  did  those  doubts  become ; 
so  that  they  finally  shaped  themselves  into  the  ordinary  system 
of  Epicureanism  joined  with  Fatalism.  This  the  author  of  the 
book  professes,"  §  282.  That  Coheleth  has  often  raised  and  ex- 
pressed doubts  respecting  retribution  and  a  future  state,  I  readily 
concede.  It  is  impossible  to  read  with  candor  such  passages  as 
3:  18—21.  9:  2—6,  and  even  6:  2—8.  9:11,  12,  without  feel- 
ing that  they  are  effusions  of  a  mind  disturbed  by  difficulties  and 
doubts,  if  they  are  considered  separately  and  as  standing  alone. 
But  why  did  not  De  Wette  consider  more  thoroughly  the  whole 
plan  and  design  of  the  book,  before  he  had  made  up  his  opinion 
from  such  passages  as  these,  and  took  it  for  granted  that  Cohe- 
leth has  expressed  in  them  his  own  settled  and  ultimate  conclu- 
sions? What  if  one  should  go  into  Paul's  epistles,  and  extract 
from  them  ail  the  passages  which  he  designed  should  be  put  to 
the  objector's  account,  and  insist  that  these  are  opinions  of  Paul  ? 


METHOD  OF  THE  BOOK.  37 

Would  the  apostle  agree  to  be  treated  thus  ?  Certainly  not. 
He  would  say,  that  he  had  not,  indeed,  formally  and  always  men- 
tioned the  objector  by  name,  as  often  as  he  has  introduced  him, 
because  he  trusted  to  the  good  sense  of  the  reader  and  the  tenor 
of  the  context,  as  sufficient  to  make  it  manifest  when  he  speaks 
himself,  and  when  he  makes  another  to  speak.  What  if  the 
Psalmist's  words,  in  Ps.  73  :  3 — 14,  should  be  put  to  his  account, 
as  expressing  his  own  settled  opinion  ?  Then  what  is  to  become 
of  the  remainder  of  the  Psalm,  where  he  declares  that  he  was 
foolish  and  brutish  in  speaking  as  he  had  done  ?  Then,  in  the 
Book  of  Job,  are  the  speeches  of  his  opponents,  who,  as  God 
himself  declares  (Job  42  :  7),  "did  not  speak  the  thing  that  was 
right  concerning  him,"  to  be  taken  as  a  guide  to  our  faith  and 
our  practice  ?  The  absurdity  of  such  a  course  is  manifest,  by 
the  mere  statement  of  the  case.  Why,  then,  may  not  the  same 
justice  be  done  to  Coheleth  as  to  others  ?  Undoubtedly,  there 
are  some  things  said  in  his  book  which  he  does  not  design  should 
be  taken  as  the  exponents  of  his  own  settled  opinion.  He  raises 
doubts  sometimes  for  the  very  purpose  of  answering  them.  He 
sometimes  exhibits  erroneous  maxims  and  precepts,  and  then 
corrects  them.  The  most  natural  account  of  the  plan  of  the 
book  seems  to  be  this,  viz.,  that  the  writer  has  given  a  picture  of 
the  struggle  and  contest  through  which  his  oivn  mind  had  passed, 
when  lie  set  out  on  the  road  of  philosophical  inquiry.  Just  such 
is  the  account  given  by  the  Psalmist  of  his  own  mind,  when  he 
saw  the  wicked  flourishing  and  the  just  perishing.  Before  the 
prying  and  inquisitive  mind  of  Coheleth,  a  multitude  of  difficul- 
ties started  up,  when  he  came  to  inquire  into  the  condition  and 
course  of  things  as  ordinarily  developed. 

It  should  be  called  to  mind  here,  that  the  great  moral  stum- 
bling-block of  the  ancient  world  was,  the  reconciliation  of  the 
doctrine  of  retribution  with  the  phenomena  that  are  constantly 
presenting  themselves  to  our  view.  The  wicked  prosper ;  the 
righteous  are  miserable,  or  perish.    All  share  one  common  destiny, 

4 


38  §2.  STECIAL  DESIGN  AND 

since  all  are  appointed  unto  death.  The  moral  sense  of  men  had 
a  strong  perception  of  the  necessity  of  a  retribution  both  just 
and  adequate.  Experience  contradicted  this,  as  to  the  present 
world.  To  those  who  had  not  a  strong  and  lively  faith  in  a  future 
state  and  retribution,  these  two  things  appeared  contradictory  and 
very  perplexing.  This  is  the  grand  problem  which  constitutes 
the  basis  of  the  whole  Book  of  Job.  His  opponents  assert  com- 
plete retribution  in  the  present  world.  Job  denies  it.  The  dis- 
pute gives  occasion  to  all  the  lofty  and  soul-stirring  sentiments 
of  this  great  moral  epic.  The  matter  in  dispute  is  placed  in 
every  position,  examined  on  every  side,  and  everything  right  and 
wrong  is  said  about  it  by  the  disputants.  And  after  all,  the  nodus 
is  not  untied,  but  cut.  God's  dealings  are  an  acknowledged 
mystery.  He  does  not  give  his  reasons  to  man,  why  he  has  so 
ordered  things  ;  but  he  insists  on  it,  that  his  wisdom,  and  knowl- 
edge, and  justice,  and  mercy,  and  sovereignty  shall  be  i\\\\j 
acknowledged.  The  issue  of  the  whole  dispute  is,  that  duty 
requires  us  to  take  and  occupy  this  ground  of  acknowledgment. 
To  the  future  Avorld,  where  all  things  will  be  adjusted,  no  direct 
appeal  is  made.  The  solvent,  which  of  all  others  a  Christian 
would  now  expect  to  be  applied,  and  which  is  sufficient  and  satis- 
factory, viz.,  that  of  adequate  future  retribution,  is  never  em- 
ployed in  the  Book  of  Job.  What  more  than  this,  if  as  much, 
can  be  said  of  Coheleth  ?  It  has  many  more  recognitions, 
more  or  less  direct,  of  a  future  existence  and  reward  than  the 
Book  of  Job. 

Let  us  consider  more  particularly,  for  a  moment,  some  of  the 
features  of  the  plan,  not  as  yat  fully  developed.  The  writer  lived, 
as  is  plain  from  the  tenor  of  his  work,  at  a  time  when  the  same 
subject  which  is  the  nodus  of  the  Book  of  Job, was  exciting  the 
anxious  mind-  of  many.  The  interest  which  they  took  in  the 
theme  of  retribution,  was  greatly  augmented  by  the  grinding 
Oppression  and  aggravated  injustice  of  rulers  and  magistrates. 
Life  was  embittered   (  ee    1  :  1 — 8),  and   multitudes    were  ex- 


METHOD   OF  THE  BOOK.  30 

claiming :  "  O  Lord,  how  long  ?  "  His  own  mind  had  passed 
through  all  the  stages  of  inquiry  and  perplexity,  before  it 
came  to  settled  and  permanent  conclusions  in  regard  10  t;oine  of 
the  topics  of  inquiry.  It  is  evident,  in  the  progress  of  his  work, 
that  his  mind  is  becoming  more  settled  and  peaceful.  lie  comes 
at  last  to  a  final  conclusion,  the  crowning  reward  of  all  his  in- 
quiries, which  is,  that  "  we  should  fear  God,  and  keep  his  com- 
mandments, because  this  is  the  duty  of  every  man."  He  comes 
too,  after  all  his  struggles  and  distresses  in  relation  to  the  doctrine 
of  retribution,  to  a  full  and  definite  conclusion,  viz.,  that  "  God 
will  bring  to  judgment  every  work,  with  every  secret  thing, 
whether  it  be  good,  or  whether  it  be  evil,"  12  :  13,  14.  Well  did 
he  know  that  other  inquiring  minds  would  have  the  same  battles 
to  fight  which  he  had  fought ;  and  in  his  book,  he  has  laid  before 
the  reader  all  the  struggles  through  which  he  passed  himself,  and 
the  obstacles  which  he  had  to  overcome.  What  he  had  felt, 
others  might  feel.  But  many  others,  perhaps,  would,  if  left 
without  special  aid,  be  less  successful  as  to  their  result  than  he 
had  been.  He  wished  to  show  his  sympathy  for  them,  and  to 
proffer  them  all  the  aid  in  his  power.  He  accordingly  brings 
before  them  the  doubts  which  were  suggested  hy  observation  and 
reflection,  or  in  some  cases,  perhaps,  were  presented  to  him  by 
others.  Many  interpreters  of  the  book  have  taken  the  passages 
that  exhibit  these  doubts,  for  the  expressions  of  the  author's  own 
deliberate  opinion.  But  such  doubts  should  be  put  in  the  same 
category  with  the  sentiments  of  Paul's  objectors.  It  matters  not 
that  they  had  passed  through  the  author's  own  mind,  for  they  had 
greatly  perplexed  and  disturbed  him.  The  passing  through  his 
mind  does  not  stamp  them  with  the  authority  of  opinions  settled, 
deliberate,  and  final.  It  only  shows  what  embarrassments  the 
writer  had  to  remove,  what  perplexities  to  contend  with.  The 
question  is  not,  whether  this  or  that  thought  once  occupied  his 
mind,  which  he  has  recorded  in  writing,  but  whether  this  or  that 


40  §2.  SPECIAL  DESIGN  AND 

thought  was  adopted  by  him,  and  made  up  a  part  of  his  settled 
and  ultimate  opinion. 

If  the  book  be  carefully  read,  with  such  considerations  in  view 
as  have  now  been  suggested,  I  venture  to  say  it  will  appear  in  a 
new  and  much  less  exceptionable  light  to  many  readers.  Indeed, 
there  will  be  only  one  serious  difficulty  remaining;  which  is,  that 
we  can  hardly  help  wondering,  that  one  who  believed  in  future 
retribution  and  happiness,  should  not  appeal  to  it  oftener  and 
more  plainly  than  he  does.  But  on  looking  farther,  we  find  this 
equally  applicable  to  nearly  every  part  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Moses  does  not  enforce  his  laws  by  considerations  drawn  from  the 
future  world,  nor  by  such  penalties  or  promises  as  the  New 
Testament  holds  up  before  Christians.  Nor  do  the  Psalms, 
Proverbs,  Job,  or  the  Prophets,  speak  more  plainly  on  the  point 
of  a  future  world,  than  Coheleth  has  done.  Why  should  we 
demand  that  he  should  so  far  outstrip  all  his  contemporaries  and 
predecessors,  as  to  make  his  book  a  gospel-treatise,  instead  of  an 
Old  Testament  production  ? 

Let  no  one  suggest  that  the  view  just  taken  of  Coheleth's 
object,  is  one  got  up  merely  for  the  sake  of  parrying  or  avoiding 
difficulties.  I  can  truly  say,  that  it  did  not  present  itself  to  my 
mind  in  this  way.  It  came  from  the  often-repeated  study  of  the 
book,  and  efforts  to  trace  the  writer's  plan  and  object.  In  order 
to  come  to  a  result  like  that  stated  above,  several  things  were  to 
be  considered.  First,  that  no  writer  of  such  powers  as  the 
author  of  this  book,  would  knowingly  and  palpably  contradict 
himself,  and  this  too  within  limits  so  narrow,  that  in  a  few  min- 
utes he  could  overlook  everything  that  he  had  written.  Secondly, 
that  in  a  book  of  evident  and  professed  disquisition  and  inquiry, 
it  is  to  be  expected  that  objections  will  be  considered  and  an- 
swered, as  well  as  thetical  propositions  made  out,  and  moral  and 
prudential  precepts  given.  Thirdly,  that  the  final  conclusions  in 
such  a  disquisitive  work,  are  naturally  to  be  taken  as  the  index 
of  the  writer's   ultimate  and  established  opinion.     Now,  taking 


METHOD  OF  THE  BOOK.  41 

these  obvious  principles  into  view,  and  conceding  to  them  their 
due  weight,  I  venture  to  say  that  one  would  come,  as  a  matter 
of  course,  to  adopt  the  views  which  have  been  stated  above.  By- 
far  the  greater  part,  indeed  almost  the  entirety,  of  the  book  is  on 
the  side  of  sound  morals,  and  insists  upon  watchful  demeanor, 
sobriety,  humility,  trust  in  God,  submission  to  his  will,  and  a 
radical  weanedness  from  the  vanities  of  the  world*  Intermixed 
with  these  grave  subjects  are  many  prudential  maxims,  in  respect 
to  industry,  thrift,  envy  and  slander  of  the  great,  and  other 
objects  both  social  and  industrial.  But  the  parts  which  have 
given  occasion  to  the  accusations  of  De  Wette,  and  others,  are 
actually  of  little  extent,  and  are  also  sparse.  To  characterize 
the  whole  book  from  these,  and  to  take  these  as  the  true  ex- 
ponents of  the  writer's  opinions,  is  far  from  either  justice  or 
candor. 

Indeed,  the  last  thing  that  one  should  think  of  in  respect  to 
Coheleth,  is  to  charge  him  with  Epicureanism,  In  the  narration 
of  that  series  of  experiments  which  he  had  made,  as  exhibited  in 
chap,  ii.,  he  tells  us  at  the  beginning  and  at  the  close,  that  his 
tvisdum  remained  with  him  through  the  whole.  He  did  not 
wallow  in  pleasure,  nor  indulge  in  any  excess.  He  made  sober 
experiments  in  the  way  of  inquiry.  In  the  somewhat  numerous 
passages,  where,  after  having  described  some  vanity  of  human 
pursuit,  he  exhorts  "to  eat,  and  to  drink,  and  to  enjoy  the  good 
of  one's  labor,"  there  is  not  one  which  savors  of  encouragement 
to  drunkenness,  or  gluttony,  or  revelling.  In  10  :  17,  18,  he  has 
most  clearly  shown  his  condemning  opinion  of  these  excesses. 
When  he  exhorts  the  young  to  make  the  best  of  life,  and  cheer- 
fully to  enjoy  it,  he  throws  in  the  salutary  and  soul-stirring  cau- 
tion, "  But  know  thou,  that  for  all  these  things  God  will  bring 
thee  to  judgment,"  11:9.  In  other  words,  "  Do  all  this,  with  the 
constant  recognition  and  remembrance  of  the  truth,  that  you  are 
to  give  an  account  to  God,  for  the  manner  in  which  you  demean 
yourself  amid  all  your  enjoyments." 

4* 


42  $2.  SPECIAL  DESIGN  AND 

A  fain  and  again  does  he  remind  those,  whom  he  addresses 
and  exhorts  to  enjoy  the  fruits  of  their  labor,  that  all  which  they 
enjoy  is  the  gift  of  God,  2  :  24,  26.  5  :  18.  3  :  13.  0  :  7—9.  In 
other  words,  "  Enjoy  the  gifts  of  God,  the  fruits  of  toil ;  but 
remember  the  hand  from  whence  they  come,  and  be  grateful  to 
the  Giver  of  all  good."  Coheleth,  with  all  his  trials  and  sorrows, 
is  indeed  no  ascetic,  no  Franciscan  monk.  He  exhorts  not  to  go 
bowed  down  all  one's  days,  covered  with  sackcloth,  assuming  a 
gloomy  countenance,  and  mortifying  the  body.  Men's  garments 
should  be  white,  i.  e.,  of  a  cheerful  cast,  and  they  should  see  that 
their  heads  lack  not  spikenard  (used  on  occasions  of  joy)  ;  yea, 
and  that  they  should  live  joyfully  with  the  wife  of  their  youth, 
9  :  7 — 9.  But  in  all  this  there  is,  or  need  be  found,  only  a  cheer- 
ful and  thankful  acceptance  of  the  gifts  of  God.  To  charge  this 
with  Epicureanism,  is  doing  the  writer  a  manifest  injustice. 

Then  as  to  the  charge  of  scepticism  made  by  De  Wette,  —  if 
the  book  is  read  in  the  light  where  it  ought  to  be  placed,  there  is 
no  solid  ground  for  making  such  a  charge.  That  which  objectors 
say,  or  else  that  which  doubts  presenting  themselves  to  the  mind 
of  the  inquisitive  writer  would  say,  is  regarded  by  De  Wette  as 
the  expression  of  the  writer's  settled  opinions.  If  Coheleth  be 
a  sceptic,  he  is  not  one,  at  all  events,  in  respect  to  God,  or  his 
wisdom,  or  goodness,  or  sovereignty,  or  hatred  of  sin,  or  love 
of  righteousness.  Let  us  follow  him  through  a  few  of  these 
particulars. 

All  which  man  enjoys  as  the  fruit  of  his  toil,  is  to  be  regarded 
as  the  gift  of  God,  2  :  24.  God  has  made  everything  fi£^,  $.  e., 
Jit,  proper,  comely,  in  its  time,  and  made  man  intelligent,  so  that 
he  may  discern  this,  3:11.  To  this  he  has  added  the  power, 
and  bestowed  the  means,  of  enjoying  the  reward  of  toil,  3:13. 
God  is  sovereign  in  the  disposal  of  all  things  and  all  events  ;  and 
he  preserves  this  attitude  of  a  sovereign,  in  order  that  men  may 
yield  him  that  reverential  homage  which  is  his  due,  3  :  14. 
When  men,  to  their  great  grief,  behold  oppression  and  wicked- 


METHOD  OF  THE  BOOK.  43 

ness,  they  should  call  to  mind,  that  "  God  will  judge  the  right- 
eous and  the  "wicked,  since  there  is  a  time  [of  judgment]  for 
every  undertaking  and  every  work,"  3:17.  It  is  an  objection 
which  suggests,  in  the  sequel,  that  the  object  of  the  divine  Being, 
in  permitting  so  much  oppression  and  wickedness,  is  to  let  men 
see  that  they  are  no  better  than  the  brutes,  and  that  all  must 
perish  in  the  same  way  as  they  do,  without  any  distinction,  3:18 
— 21.  God  is  to  be  worshipped  with  the  deepest  reverence, 
and  in  spirit  and  in  truth,  instead  of  trusting  in  sacrifices  and 
offerings,  4  :  17  (5  :  1.  Eng.).  Yows  unto  God  are  allowable, 
but  not  rash  and  foolish  ones,  and  above  all  not  deceitful  ones, 
5  :  1 — 4  (5  :  2 — 5).  God  will  summarily  punish  false  vows,  5  :  5 
(5:6).  In  all  that  has  respect  to  religion,  God  is  to  be  regarded 
with  reverential  fear,  5:6  (5:7). 

When  oppressive  rulers  do  violence  and  wrong,  we  must  call 
to  mind  that  there  is  One  Most  High  over  them  all,  5  :  7 
(5  :  8).  God  gives  men  the  fruits  of  their  labor,  and  the  power 
of  enjoying  them  ;  and  all  these  things  are  to  be  regarded  as  his 
gift,  5  :  17,  18  (5  :  18,  19).  6:2.  God  has  fixed  the  order,  and 
measure,  and  manner  of  all  things  and  all  events ;  he  has  con- 
trasted prosperity  with  adversity,  and  made  them  to  alternate  in 
such  a  way,  that  man  cannot  with  confidence  foretell  the  future, 
7  :  13,  14.  Whoever  pleases  God  shall  be  delivered  from  the 
fatal  snares  of  seductive  women,  7 :  26.  Men  must  not  charge 
their  sins  upon  God ;  for  he  made  man  upright,  and  it  is  man 
who  has  sought  out  many  evil  inventions,  7  :  29.  "  It  shall  be 
well  with  them  that  fear  God,  and  ill  with  those  who  do  not  fear 
him,"  8:12,  13.  The  work  of  God  is  inscrutable,  8:17.  The 
righteous  and  their  works  are  in  the  hand  of  God.  All  is  at  bis 
disposal,  so  that  many  things  take  place,  the  ground  and  reason 
of  which  lie  not  within  our  reach  of  understanding,  9:1.  When 
prosperity  comes,  enjoy  it,  and  regard  it  as  divine  favor,  9  : 7. 
God's  ways  are  unsearchable,  11  :  5.  God,  our  Creator,  is  to  be 
remembered  even  in  our  youth,  12:1.     The  spirit  ivturns  to 


44  $2.  SPECIAL  DESIGN  AND 

God  who  gave  it,  12 :  7.  The  grand  conclusion  of  the  whole 
book  is,  that  we  should  "  fear  God,  and  keep  his  commandments ; 
because  God  will  bring  everything,  whether  good  or  evil,  into 
judgment,"  12  :  13,  14. 

Such  are  the  writer's  views  of  God,  of  his  providence,  and  of 
his -relations  to  men.  In  all  this,  where  is  there  a  trace  of  scep- 
ticism ?  Nay,  we  may  go  much  farther  :  Where  is  there  more 
unqualified  reverence,  submission,  confidence,  and  obedience  re- 
quired, than  in  this  book  ?  A  submission  the  more  to  be  com- 
mended and  admired,  because  of  the  deep  political  and  civil 
gloom  spread  all  around  the  writer.  Indeed,  his  reverence  for 
God  must  have  been  of  the  highest  kind ;  for  how  else  could  it 
sustain  him,  and  encourage  him  to  look  up  with  such  unqual- 
ified submission  ?  Holy  Job  broke  forth  into  cursing  the  day  of 
his  birth,  and  allegations  of  partiality  in  the  dealings  of  divine 
Providence.  Coheleth,  too,  was  led,  for  a  time,  to  loathe  life, 
because  of  severe  oppression  ;  but  he  does  not  take  the  position 
of  Job,  nor  does  he  complain  of  either  partiality  or  injustice  on 
the  part  of  his  Maker.  And  all  this  filial  submission  is  greatly 
magnified,  when  we  call  to  mind  how  faint  his  views  of  the 
future  were,  in  comparison  with  those  which  the  gospel  has  pre- 
sented to  us.  Such  submission  and  reverence,  under  such 
circumstances,  are  enough  to  make  us  heartily  ashamed  of 
ourselves,  when  we  murmur  and  are  disquieted  in  a  condition 
such  as  ours. 

In  respect  to  the  Fatalism  which  is  charged  against  the  book, 
the  ] (receding  views  of  God  and  of  his  doings  are  a  sufficient 
answer.  The  order  of  nature,  of  events,  of  trial  and  suffering, 
and  of  enjoyment,  too,  is  indeed  fixed  by  an  overruling  Provi- 
dence. Man  cannot  change  it.  But  what  more  of  fatalism  is 
there  in  all  this,  than  there  is  in  Rom.  8  :  9,  and  in  many 
other  parts  of  the  Bible?  What  more,  than  in  nearly  all  the 
Reformed  Creeds  of  Christendom  ?  That  God  has  foreordained 
all  things,  is  the  common  doctrine  of  all.     But  still,  it  is  man 


METHOD  OF  THE  BOOK.  45 

"  who  seeks  out  many  inventions."  The  sinner  can  plead  no 
fatality,  in  extenuation  of  his  guilt.  God  has  foreordained  that 
he  should  act  freely. 

"Wherein,  then,  consists  the  scepticism  in  question  ?  "  In  the 
fact,"  De  TTette  would  doubtless  reply,  "  that  Coheleth  believed 
nothing  of  a  future  state  and  a  future  retribution ."  He.  does  not 
venture  to  say  that  there  i3  nothing  of  it ;  for  3  :  21  shows  that 
the  question,  whether  the  spirit  goeth  upivard,  was  within  the 
reach  of  his  inquiry,  and  of  course  that  he  knew  something  of 
this  subject.  Then  what  is  the  proof  of  the  unbelief  in  question  ? 
The  very  same  proof  as  in  the  case  of  Epicureanism  ;  i.  e.,  it  is 
drawn  from  the  former  doubts  of  the  writer's  own  mind,  or  else 
from  allegations  of  objectors.  But  are  there  not  declarations 
enough  to  show  that  the  mind  of  Coheleth  had  a  different  per- 
suasion from  that  which  these  doubts  indicate  ?  This  question  is 
easy  to  answer,  and  of  much  importance. 

Let  the  reader,  then,  turn  to  3  :  17.  After  stating  that  he  had 
seen  the  tribunals  of  justice  filled  with  oppression  and  wicked- 
ness, the  writer  says  that  "  God  will  judge  the  righteous  and  the 
wicked,"  and  that  he  has  appointed  a  time  in  which  all  will  come 
under  the  judicial  cognizance  of  his  tribunal.  Again ;  there  is 
One  higher  than  the  highest  earthly  ruler  (5:8),  namely,  One 
who  will  punish  oppressors  —  for  of  course  this  is  the  intimation  ; 
—  there  is  One  who  will  vindicate  the  oppressed,  that  have  no 
comforter  here,  4:1.  The  young  may  indeed  rejoice  in  their 
blessings  ;  but  they  are  always  to  keep  in  view  the  judgment  to 
come,  11  :  9.  "God  will  bring  to  judgment  every  work,  with 
every  secret  thing,  whether  it  be  good,  or  whether  it  be  evil," 
12  :  14.  Even  Knobel  acknowledges  that  this  last  passage  indi- 
cates, beyond  all  doubt,  a  future  retribution.  But  since  he 
agrees  with  De  Wette  as  to  the  skepticism  of  the  book,  he  is 
driven  to  maintain  that  this  passage  was  added  by  a  later  and  a 
foreign  hand. 

Thus  much  for  passages  bearing  directly  on  the  idea  of  a  judg- 


•iO'  §2.  SPECIAL  DESIGN  AND 

ment  to  come.  Intimately  and  necessarily  connected  with  these, 
are  all  those  passages  which  speak  of  a  just  retribution.  God  is 
to  he  feared,  3  :  14.  Sin  makes  him  angry,  5  :  G.  Why  feared? 
And  what  will  his  anger  do  ?  Those  that  fear  God,  shall  expe- 
rience deliverance,  7  :  18.  Wickedness  shall  not  deliver  those 
who  are  given  to  it,  8:8.  "  It  shall  be  well  with  them  who  fear 
God,"  8  :  12.  "It  shall  not  be  well  with  those  who  do  not  fear 
him,"  8:13.  "  Remember  thy  Creator,"  12:1;  —  with  the  im- 
plication of  reward,  in  case  of  obedience.  "  Fear  God,  and  keep 
his  commandments,"  12  :  13  ;  —  with  the  same  implication. 

Thus  the  doctrine  of  a  retribution  for  good  and  evil,  and  of  a 
time  when  every  action  will  be  scanned  and  judged,  lies  scattered 
through  the  whole  book  of  Coheleth.  It  is  impossible  reasonably 
to  doubt  the  state  of  his  mind  in  regard  to  these  things.  But  in 
order  to  cast  farther  light  on  his  meaning,  it  is  necessary  to  take 
into  view  other  things  which  he  has  said  in  relation  to  this 
subject.  He  has,  in  different  ways,  fully  developed  the  senti- 
ment, that  retribution  is  not  made  in  the  present  life.  All  expe- 
rience the  same  evils  ;  all  die  alike  ;  all  are  subject  to  the  same 
disappointments  ;  the  lot  which  the  righteous  deserves  often  falls 
to  the  wicked,  and  so  vice  versa  ;  the  righteous  perish  not  only  in 
their  righteousness,  but  because  of  it ;  and  so  the  wicked  prosper 
by  reason  of  their  wickedness.  Time  and  chance  happen  to  all 
alike  ;  there  is  one  event  or  destiny  to  the  righteous  and  to  the 
wicked,  to  the  clean  and  to  the  unclean.  (See  2  :  14,  15. 
3:18—21.  4:1—3.  6:8.  7:15.  8:14.  9:1,2,11.)  Now, 
although  some  of  this  is  the  language  of  objection,  yet  the  facts 
stated  are  such  as  cannot  be  denied.  The  force  of  the  objection 
from  deductions  made  out  of  the  facts,  and  does  not  consist 
in  the  facts  themselves. 

We  assume  it,  then,  as  a  plain  doctrine  in  Coheleth,  that  — 
since  such  facts  cannot  be  denied  —  retribution,  adequate  and 
fund,  does  not  lake  place  in  the  present  icorld.  Indeed,  the  tes- 
timony of  all  ages  unites  in  the  confirmation  of  this  position.    We 


METHOD  OF  THE  BOOK.  47 

are  brought,  then,  by  all  this,  into  a  predicament  where  we  arc 
fully  and  entirely  at  liberty,  and  indeed  arc  entitled,  to  make  out 
the  following  syllogism  : 

(1)  Retribution,  adequate  and  just,  of  good  and  evil,  will 
certainly  be  made.  (2)  It  is  not  made  in  the  present  world. 
Therefore,  (3)  It  must  be  made  in  a  future  world. 

If  there  be  any  way  of  properly  shunning  or  avoiding  this 
conclusion,  it  is  unknown  to  me.  That  this  process  of  reasoning 
is  built  upon  the  book  itself,  is  quite  plain  and  certain,  from  what 
has  been  produced.  It  would  seem  that  no  intelligent  and  con- 
siderate man  ought  to  estimate  the  understanding  of  Coheleth  at 
so  low  a  rate,  as  to  suppose  him  designedly  to  have  presented  a 
medley  of  palpable  contradictions  in  his  book,  which,  if  really 
admitted,  would  utterly  destroy  respect  for  himself  as  a  writer, 
and  mar  all  the  credit  of  his  work.  On  the  contrary,  one  feels,  in 
reading  the  book  intelligently  and  carefully,  the  grasp  of  a  power- 
ful mind  and  of  an  acute  observer  of  men  and  things.  What 
credit  could  he  expect  Epicurean  skepticism  would  gain  for  a 
book,  among  such  a  people  as  the  Hebrews  ?  What  is  there  in  t lie 
Old  Testament  which  is  congenial  with  this  ?  Nothing  —  noth- 
ing  at  all.  How,  then,  can  De  Wette's  views  be  made  probable  ? 
—  views  in  direct  opposition  to  all  that  is  Hebrew  ?  And  how 
is  it  possible  to  attribute  the  numerous  passages  of  the  book  be- 
fore us  (which  take  high  ground  on  the  subject  of  retribution, 
and  of  God's  hatred  of  sin  and  love  of  holiness  and  spiritual 
obedience)  to  a  devotee  of  pleasure  and  a  skeptic?  This  ques- 
tion calls  for  an  answer ;  and  an  answer  I  have  endeavored  to 
give,  in  the  preceding  remarks;  an  answer,  however,  directly  the 
reverse  of  De  Wette's.  And  I  may  appeal  to  every  intelligent 
reader  and  candid  critic,  whether  my  answer  is  not  fairly  sus- 
tained by  the  book  itself?  If  so,  then  the«principJes  of  exegesis, 
applicable  to  the  book,  must  be  conceded  to  be  such  as  I  have 
advocated  above. 

The  attentive  reader  must  have  observed,  that  I  have  as  yet 


48  §2.   SPECIAL  DESIGN  AND 

made  no  appeal  to  the  inspiration  of  the  book,  in  order  to  sus- 
tain its  claims  to  our  regard.  I  have  purposely  avoided  this,  be- 
cause those  with  whom  I  have  been  arguing,  do  not  admit  the 
claim  or  the  reality  of  inspiration.  But  after  passing  through 
this  contest  on  merely  ethical  and  critical  grounds,  I  now  come 
to  say,  that  the  Book  of  Ecclesiastes  has,  in  common  with  the 
other  Old  Testament  books,  a  claim  to  the  place  which  it  holds 
as  one  of  the  inspired  writings.  The  author  does  not,  indeed, 
assert  himself  to  be  inspired ;  but  neither  do  many  other  writers 
in  the  Old  Testament  assert  this  of  themselves.  There  the  book 
is,  in  the  midst  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  ;  and  there  it  has  been, 
at  least  ever  since  the  period  when  the  Hebrew  canon  was  closed. 
There  at  all  events  it  was,  when  our  Saviour  and  the  apostles 
declared  the  Jewish  Scriptures  to  be  of  divine  origin  and  author- 
ity. I  need  not  trace  the  history  of  its  canonical  reception  and 
place  here  ;  and  more  especially  may  I  omit  to  do  this,  inasmuch 
as  I  have  already,  in  my  little  volume  on  the  Canon  of  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures,  canvassed  the  wThole  subject.  Enough  for 
us  that  the  Jews  of  our  Saviour's  time  held  fast  to  this  book,  and 
that  this  usage  was  sanctioned  by  Christ  and  his  apostles. 

But  there  is  another  point  of  view  in  which  this  subject  should 
now  be  placed.  Would  Christ  and  the  apostles  have  sanctioned 
a  work  which  taught  Epicurean  skepticism  ?  It  would  seem  as 
if  this  question  needed  no  answer,  except  that  which  the  very 
asking  of  it  suggests.  Where  is  there  any  parallel  to  such  a 
proceeding,  in  the  history  of  the  sacred  Canon  ?  It  is  not 
Hjpposable  that  they  took  such  a  view  of  the  book  as  De 
Wette's. 

"  But  the  New  Testament,"  it  is  said,  "  never  quotes  or  refers 
to  Ecclesiastes."  True  ;  but  where  does  it  quote  Ruth,  Esther, 
Lamentations,  Obadiah,  and  some  other  books?  The  reason  is 
plain  and  simple,  viz.,  that  no  occasion  required  quotation.  The 
argumentum  a  silentio  is  a  very  weak  and  unsatisfactory  argu- 
ment, in  all  cases  of  such  a  nature. 


METHOD   OF  THE  BOOK.  40 

We  seem,  then,  to  be  bound  to  concede,  that  the  book  was  re- 
garded by  Christ  and  the  apostles  in  a  manner  very  different 
from  that  of  De  Wette,  Knobel,  Ilitzig,  Heiligstedt,  and  many 
others.  And  if  so,  then  the  former  found  in  it,  most  surely,  no 
Epicurean  skepticism.  No  laws  of  fair  exegesis  oblige  us  to 
find  it.  We  can  dispose  of  the  seemingly  obnoxious  sentiments, 
in  some  parts  of  it,  in  the  same  way  as  we  do  of  the  like  senti- 
ments in  the  Book  of  Job,  where  the  objectors  appear  in  propria 
persona;  and  just  as  we  do  in  Paul's  epistles,  where  they  appear 
without  being  named,  as  they  do  in  the  book  before  us.  We  dis- 
pose of  them  in  the  same  way  as  we  do  of  what  the  Scribes  and 
Pharisees  say,  as  reported  in  the  gospels.  What  they  utter  is 
not  authoritative  either  in  doctrine  or  practice  ;  nor  were  they 
at  all  inspired.  But  an  inspired  writer  has  told  us  what  they 
said  and  did,  and  we  give  full  credit  to  his  narration.  Just  so  in 
the  case  before  us.  The  writer  —  I  believe  him  to  be  an  in- 
spired writer  —  has  told  us  what  doubts  and  difficulties  once 
passed  through  his  own  mind,  or  were  suggested  to  him  by 
others  ;  and  we  set  them  down  merely  for  what  he  intended 
them  to  be  considered.  I  say  that  he  intended  them  to  be 
regarded  as  mere  objections,  because  I  cannot  force  myself 
to  believe  him  to  be  so  weak  a  man  as  to  contradict  himself 
so  egregiously  as  De  Wette  makes  him  to  do,  or  rather  would 
make  him  to  do,  if  he  had  brought  both  sides  of  the  question 
into  view.  But  he  has  taken  care  to  shun  the  doing  of  this, 
and  has  made  out  Coheleth's  settled  opinions  merely  from  his 
doubts  and  difficulties.  This  does  not  seem  to  be  holding  the 
balance  with  the  equable  hand  of  justice. 

I  feel  compelled  to  say  of  De  Wette's  introduction  to  his 
book  (in  his  Einleitung),  that  it  is  one  of  the  most  hasty  and 
incondite  of  his  productions ;  and  nothing  can  be  more  evident 
to  one  who  has  thoroughly  studied  the  book,  than  that  he  be- 
stowed very  little  more  than  a  hasty  and  superficial  glance  at  the 

5 


50  $2.  SPECIAL  DESIGN  AXD 

whole  matter.  The  section  containing  the  introduction  was 
probably  the  work  of  a  single  session  in  his  study. 

In  the  investigation  of  the  question  respecting  the  design  of 
Coheleth,  we  have  come  at  least  to  a  negative  conclusion,  in  ad- 
dition to  the  preceding  positive  ones,  viz.,  that  it  was  not  the 
author's  design  to  teach  either  Epicureanism  or  Fatalism. 

But  have  we  yet  brought  to  view  all  the  topics  about  which 
the  book  descants  ?  We  have  exhibited  the  main  topic,  and  the 
one  which  stands  next  to  this,  namely,  lessons  or  precepts  of 
practical  wisdom.  We  have  also  touched  on  that  of  avarice,  and 
that  of  civil  oppression  and  misrule.  A  few  more  topics  must  be 
briefly  suggested,  before  we  can  complete  our  view  of  the 
author's  whole  design. 

No  individual  and  special  topic  is  so  often  discussed,  in  the 
book  before  us,  as  that  of  wisdom.  For  the  most  part,  this  word 
has  a  meaning  here,  different  from  that  which  it  more  usually 
has  in  Proverbs,  Psalms,  and  other  Old  Testament  books.  In 
general,  it  is  equivalent  here  to  sagacity,  prudential  dexterity, 
shrewdness,  cunning  in  the  better  sense  of  the  word.  Sometimes 
it  designates  that  prudential  foresight  which  leads  one  to  fear 
and  obey  God ;  for  there  is  sometimes  developed  in  the  book  a 
religious  and  ethical  wisdom ;  but  in  most  cases  the  word  is 
applied  to  practical  sagacious  management  of  affairs,  or  wise 
demeanor  ;  or  if  not  to  these,  then  to  sagacity  in  the  investigation 
of  various  matters,  and  ability  to  make  distinctions  between 
things  that  differ. 

In  the  commencing  part  of  the  book,  after  giving  us  a  striking 
picture  of  the  vanity  of  all  things  and  their  ceaseless  round 
of  uniformity,  the  author  proposes,  as  one  great  object  before 
him,  to  "investigate  by  wisdom  respecting  everything  that  is 
done  under  the  sun,"  1:13.  lie  tells  us  that  "he  acquired 
wisdom  above  all  who  were  before  him  in  Jerusalem  ;"  and  that 
in  order  more  fully  to  understand  wisdom,  he  conlrnsted  it  with 
folly  and  madness,  1  :  1G,  17.     Yet,  such  an  ardent  pursuit  of  it 


METHOD    OF    THE    BOOK.  51 

brought  with  it  much  vexation  and  sorrow,  1:18.  In  the  exper- 
iments he  made  by  resorting  to  all  the  different  means  or 
sources  of  pleasure,  he  cautiously  took  wisdom,  i.  e.,  prudential 
foresight,  along  with  him,  so  that  he  might  make  experiments  in 
the  best  manner;  see  2  : 1 — 11,  and  especially  vs.  3,  9.  In  ex- 
amining the  wisdom  possessed  by  him,  in  order  to  find  its  excel- 
lence or  principal  advantage,  he  found  that  such  as  possessed  it 
could  often  see  where  others  were  more  or  less  blind,  2  :  13,  14. 
Yet  wisdom  could  not  guard  him  against  many  ills  of  life,  which 
come  equally  on  the  wise  and  the  foolish.  In  this  respect,  there- 
fore, he  found  it  to  be  vanity.  Nor  could  wisdom  secure  his 
future  fame  ;  for  all  die  and  are  forgotten.  Here  again  it  showed 
itself  to  be  vanity,  even  an  empty  pursuit,  2  :  14 — 17.  -Wisdom, 
as  employed  in  the  acquisition  of  wealth,  is  defeated  in  its  ends ; 
for  the  effort  and  trouble  are  great,  and  all  that  is  amassed  soon 
goes  into  other  hands,  it  may  be  into  those  of  a  fool,  2  :  18 — 23. 
But  however  wisdom  may  contribute  to  one's  enjoyment,  by 
enabling  him  to  make  a  dexterous  use  of  things,  it  must  be 
acknowledged  rather  as  the  gift  of  God,  than  as  anything  of 
which  we  can  boast,  2  :  24 — 26.  Wisdom  enables  even  a  child 
to  act  more  successfully  than  the  aged  who  are  foolish,  4 :  13. 
But  in  regard  to  many  evils  that  come  upon  us,  the  wise  man 
has  no  advantage  over  the  fool,  6  :  8.  Rebuke  from  the  wise  is 
salutary.  7:5.  If  a  man  that  is  wise,  betakes  himself  to 
oppression,  it  will  soon  make  him  like  to  a  madman,  7:7.  Wis- 
dom is  of  some  avail,  as  well  as  wealth ;  for  it  often  protects 
men  from  threatened  evils,  even  where  money  would  not  do  this, 
.7:11,  12.  It  is  better  than  the  forces  and  weapons  of  war, 
7:19.  In  seeking  for  examples  of  it,  in  order  to  pry  into  its 
true  nature,  he  has  very  rarely  been  able  to  find  them,  7  :  25 — 28. 
In  fact,  the  thing  is  too  recondite  and  deep  to  be  fully  attained, 
as  to  its  real  nature,  7  :  23 — 25.  Wisdom  will  exhilarate  the 
man  who  can  apply  it  to  the  solution  of  difficult  things,  8:1. 
Wisdom  will  teach  discreet  behavior  in  presence  of  rulers,  8  :  5. 


52  §2.  SPECIAL  DESIGN  AND 

"Wisdom,  as  to  all  matters  that  are  transacted,  is  difficult  of  attain- 
ment, and  no  one  can  thoroughly  explore  it,  8  :  16,  17.  Wisdom 
belongs  to  the  present  life,  9:10;  will  not  always  be  successful, 
9:11;  yet  sometimes  it  achieves  important  things  in  the  defence 
of  those  who  are  attacked,  9  :  13 — 15.  It  is  better  than  weapons 
of  war,  9:18.  It  is  spoiled  by  a  little  folly,  10:1.  It  is  needed 
and  is  useful  in  almost  all  of  even  the  common  concerns  of  life, 
10  :  2 — 15.  The  preacher,  as  a  wise  man  (a  ffcikclm),  taught 
the  people  knowledge,  12:9.  The  words  of  the  wise  are  a 
powerful  stimulus  to  the  minds  of  men,  who  are  inclined  to  be 
inefficient  or  to  do  but  little,  12:11. 

"Wisdom,  then,  is  placed  in  a  great  variety  of  attitudes,  some 
of  which  seem,  at  first  view,  to  be  incongruous  with  others. 
First,  he  sought  wisdom  with  much  eagerness,  and  made  himself 
more  wise  than  any  before  him  at  Jerusalem.  Then  he  found 
wisdom  to  be  of  no  avail  in  many  cases,  and  that  the  pursuit  of 
it  was  vanity.  At  another  time  we  find  him  saying,  that  when 
he  sought  after  it,  he  found  it  was  too  deep  and  remote  to  be  ex- 
plored, 7  :  23,  24.  At  one  time,  like  every  other  thing  that  man 
pursues,  it  is  vanity  ;  at  another,  it  answers  important  purposes 
in  commanding  success,  and  in  defending  from  dangers  that 
threaten.  At  one  time,  we  feel  almost  as  if  he  were  speaking 
ironically  concerning  it,  when  he  speaks  of  it  as  merely  en- 
abling one  to  see  what  the  fool  does  not  see.  But  when  all 
parts  of  the  picture  are  carefully  compared,  it  will  be  found  that 
wisdom  is  often  spoken  of  relatively,  i.  e.,  as  related  to  certain 
things  over  which  we  have  no  control.  In  such  a  case,  he  calls 
it  vanity.  Whatever  may  be  its  value  in  other  respects,  it  can- 
not keep  off  many  of  the  ills  of  life,  nor  prevent  our  exposcd- 
ness  to  many  losses  and  trials,  nor  enable  us  to  escape  from 
death.  It  can  avail  us  only  in  prudential  matters,  where  caution 
and  sagacity  are  useful  and  necessary  to  guard  against  danger, 
or  to  win  success.  Here,  indeed,  there  is  something  valuable  in 
it,  and  worthy  of  being  possessed.     But  when  sjKculativcly  in- 


METHOD  OF  THE  BOOK.  53 

vestlgatcd  (7  :  23  seq.),  it  soon  presents  difficulties  that  we  can- 
not overcome,  and  we  are  forced  to  abandon  the  pursuit.  But 
when  practically  exercised,  it  is  that  which  is  needed  in  all  the 
concerns  of  life,  in  a  greater  or  less  degree,  if  they  are  capable 
of  being  managed,  and  require  to  be  managed,  so  as  to  meet  our 
wishes. 

The  author  seems  to  hold  on  to  this  mental  quality,  with  much 
more  tenacity  than  he  does  to  any  of  the  ordinary  pursuits  of 
business  or  pleasure  among  men.  The  reputation  of  Solomon 
for  wisdom,  seems  to  have  thrown  a  charm  around  the  acqui- 
sition of  it.  Yet  after  all,  conceding  the  aid  which  it  gives,  and 
its  preeminence  above  folly,  it  is  not  that  high  and  enduring 
good  after  which  he  is  seeking.  Some  credit,  indeed,  is  due 
to  it,  for  in  many  ways  it  is  useful ;  but  it  lacks  the  power  of 
making  us  superior  to  the  common  and  unavoidable  evils  of  life. 

In  this  view  of  the  subject,  we  find  at  once  a  justification  of 
the  definition  of  wisdom,  as  employed  in  this  book,  which  I  have 
given  above.  It  is  not  wisdom  in  the  high  sense  which  the  word 
often  bears  in  the  book  of  Proverbs.  The  fear  of  God  is  there 
regarded  as  the  beginning  of  wisdom.  Obedience  to  his  com- 
mands as  the  consummation  of  it.  It  is  almost  the  equivalent 
of  piety  ;  while  folly  is  another  name  for  wickedness.  Not  so  in 
the  book  before  us.  "Wisdom  and  folly  are  indeed  abundantly 
brought  into  contrast ;  but  here  they  are  equivalent  to  sagacity 
and  to  the  lack  of  it ;  here  they  are  prudent  caution  and  fore- 
sight, or  the  want  of  it ;  and  here  they  are  dexterity  of  manage- 
ment, or  the  want  of  it.  In  a  word,  they  are  practical  wisdom 
or  the  want  of  it,  as  developed  in  all  the  circumstances  and 
engagements  of  life. 

This,  it  is  evident,  is  altogether  adapted  to  one  of  the  leading 
purposes  of  the  book,  viz.,  that  of  giving  prudential  maxims  or 
rules  of  life,  so  that  we  may  avoid  as  many  evils  as  possible,  and 
acquire  and  enjoy  as  much  good.  While  the  author  gives  us 
such  a  vivid  picture  of  the  vanity  of  the  present  world,  he  en- 

5* 


54  §  2.   STECIAL  DESIGN  AND 

deavors  to  guide  us  in  such  a  way,  as  that  we  may  suffer  the 
least  that  is  possible  in  consequence  of  this  vanity.  Wisdom  is 
so  important  to  the  attainment  of  this  end,  that  it  cannot  be  dis- 
pensed with ;  but  the  man  who  pursues  it  with  the  expectation 
that,  in  itself,  it  is  adequate  to  procure  for  him  stable  and  certain 
good,  will  always  be  disappointed.  But  of  wisdom  in  the  sense 
of  religion  or  piety,  this  cannot  be  truly  said  ;  for  the  contrary  is 
true.  It  is  manifest,  then,  that  this  is  not  the  kind  of  wisdom 
which  is  so  often  discussed  by  Coheleth. 

On  the  whole,  that  a  philosopher  (for  such  Coheleth  professes 
himself  to  be,  i.  e.,  a  tsn),  should  concern  himself  with  the  ex- 
amination and  discussion  of  ivisdom,  is  altogether  congruous  with 
the  nature  of  his  book,  and  is  what  we  might  naturally  expect. 
But  how  different  are  his  views  from  those  of  Piato  and  even 
of  Socrates.  Speculative  discriminations,  and  the  power  of 
making  them  acutely,  are  the  cro$i<x  of  the  Greeks ;  while  with 
the  Hebrews,  either  religion,  or  practical  sagacity  and  prudence 
in  the  affairs  of  life,  constitute  the  essence  of  wisdom.  Of  met- 
aphysical reasoning  and  subtilties  they  had  little  or  no  conception, 
or  at  any  rate,  they  felt  little  or  no  interest  in  them. 

As  I  have  already  intimated,  there  is  not  the  least  trace  of  any 
acquaintance,  on  the  part  of  Coheleth,  with  the  Greek  philosophy, 
in  any  portion  of  his  book.  But  still,  the  fame  of  Grecian 
philosophy  might  have  been  one  of  the  moving  causes  of  writ- 
ing the  book.  The  heathen  was  disposed  to  say  to  the  Jew : 
"  What  ground  for  claiming  preeminence  have  you  ?  The 
knowledge  of  cro<£ia  does  not  exist  among  you  ?  "  Coheleth  has 
written  a  book  which  furnishes  an  answer  to  this  taunting  allega- 
tion, although  perhaps  it  was  not  designed  to  do  so.  "  Here  is 
our  philosophy,"  a  Jew  might  reply,  who  held  this  book  in  his 
hand.  And  there  indeed  it  was  ;  and  in  a  religious,  moral,  and 
practical  point  of  view,  it  was  worth  more  than  all  the  philosophy 
of  Greece. 

Before  we  quit  the  present  subject,  it  will  be  well  to  notice  the 


METHOD  OF  THE  BOOK.  55 

singular  theory  of  Ewald,  Ilitzig,  and  some  others,  in  regard  to 
wisdom  in  this  book.  It  is  this,  viz.,  that  CoJielcth  is  but  another 
name  for  wisdom ;  and  inasmuch  as  Solomon  was  regarded  by 
some  of  the  later  Hebrews  as  wisdom  incarnate  (Wisd.  0  :  7,  8. 
7  :  1  seq.),  so  it  is  incarnate  Wisdom  in  the  person  of  Solomon, 
who  speaks  throughout  this  book  ;  (Hitz.  Comm.  on  1  : 1).  But 
how  such  a  theory  as  this  could  be  soberly  advanced  and  de- 
fended, I  cannot  well  imagine.  (1)  In  the  Book  of  Proverbs, 
chap.  viii.  ix.,  in  Sirach  chap,  xxiv.,  where  ivisdom  is  personified, 
we  have  the  most  express  intimations  of  it ;  which  is  as  much 
as  to  say,  that  without  these  intimations  the  reader  would  be 
in  danger  of  mistaking  the  writer.  Nothing  of  this  kind,  how- 
ever, is  seen  in  Coheleth.  He  appears,  speaks,  acts,  everywhere 
as  a  simple  personage,  and  not  as  a  mysterious  symbol.  If  such 
were  not  the  case,  we  might  reasonably  expect  to  be  advertised 
of  it.  (2)  Whenever  wisdom  is  elsewhere  personified,  i.  e.,  in- 
troduced as  a  person,  she  is  not  personified  in  another  individual, 
but  only  in  and  by  herself.  In  other  words,  she  is  introduced 
as  personified  Wisdom,  and  not  as  Solomon.  (3)  Things  are 
attributed  to  wisdom  here,  which,  if  we  suppose  abstract  and  ab- 
solute wisdom  to  be  meant  by  the  word,  are  utterly  incompatible 
with  its  nature.  For  example,  wisdom  is  introduced  (i.  e.,  y>yo- 
vided  Coheleth  is  its  representative  or  incarnation)  as  making 
strenuous  efforts  to  acquire  itself,  and  does  actually  acquire  itself 
with  success  ;  1  :  1G,  17.  2  :  12.  Wisdom  remained  with  itself, 
2:9;  and  yet  wisdom  was  far  away  from  wisdom,  and  too  deep 
and  remote  to  be  understood,  7  :  23,  24.  In  wisdom  is  much 
vexation,  1  :  18.  Wisdom  is  altogether  vanity,  2  :  15,  1G.  Wis- 
dom exerts  itself  most  strenuously  to  find  out  itself,  but  is  unable 
to  doit,  8:16,17. 

How  is  it  possible  now,  I  ask,  to  predicate  all  these  things  of 
wisdom  absolute,  as  dwelling  in  Coheleth  ?  The  bare  inspection 
of  them  supersedes  all  argument  in  the  case.  It  is  clear  as  the 
sun,  that  Coheleth  is  &  person  seeking  to  obtain  wisdom,  that  he 


56  §2.    SPECIAL    DESIGN    AND 

obtains  it  imperfectly,  and  finds  it  on  many  occasions  useful,  while 
in  many  others  it  is  quite  powerless.  Could  abstract  wisdom  say 
of  herself,  that  she  was  vanity,  and  unknown  to  herself,  and  un- 
knowable ?  And  although  this  theory  can  boast  of  patrons  with 
such  names  as  Geier,  Le  Clerc,  Rambach,  Carpzov,  Koster, 
and  others  of  past  days,  and  of  Ewald  and  Hitzig,  now  living, 
it  must  be  regarded  still  (at  least  it  seems  so  me)  as  coming 
from  the  land  of  dreams ;  and  these  appear  to  be  rather  disturbed 
ones. 

Another  topic,  which  comes  under  frequent  discussion,  viz., 
that  of  riches,  and  efforts  to  amass  them,  has  been  somewhat 
fully  exhibited,  near  the  beginning  of  the  present  section.  I 
merely  avert  to  it  here.  It  would  seem,  from  the  vivid  pictures 
of  avarice,  or  of  amassing  great  wealth,  that  it  was  probably  a 
frequent  vice  in  the  time  of  Coheleth,  and  that  he  regarded  it 
with  that  strong  disapprobation  which  is  everywhere  expressed 
in  his  book.  It  is  not  the  mere  matter  of  possessing  or  acquir- 
ing, which  he  disapproves,  but  the  setting  one's  heart  on  wealth, 
and  the  expectation  that  any  solid  happiness  can  be  secured 
by  it. 

Other  topics  are  also  included  in  the  book.  But  they  are 
merely  touched  upon,  as  it  were  incidentally,  and  do  not  appear 
to  have  belonged  to  the  main  parts  of  his  design.  For  example, 
the  folly  of  ambition  is  represented  in  strong  colors,  in  4  :  13 — 16. 
One  cannot  help  thinking  of  "  the  old  and  foolish  king,"  as  being 
Solomon,  in  his  old  age,  when  led  away  by  his  heathen  wives. 
The  young  man  who  comes  into  his  place,  seems  to  be  Jeroboam, 
who  led  away  ten  parts  of  the  Hebrew  nation.  His  unhappy 
doom  is  briefly  but  forcibly  related.  But  we  miss,  in  this  book, 
many  of  the  topics  which  we  might  naturally  expect  would  be 
touched  on,  as  they  concern  the  means  in  vain  resorted  to  for  the 
sake  of  securing  enjoyment.  Whoredom  and  concubinage  are 
scarcely  brought  to  view.  Many  vices  that  were  common,  such 
as  defrauding,   stealing,  idleness,  prodigality,  and  the  like,  so 


METHOD  OF  THE   LOOK.  57 

often  treated  of  in  the  Book  of  Proverbs,  are  scarcely,  or  not  at 
all,  glanced  at  here.  It  was  not  within  the  scope  of  the  author's 
design,  to  bring  all  vices  into  view.  As  a  remarkable  circum- 
stance of  this  nature,  may  be  mentioned  the  entire  omission  of 
any  reference  to,  or  mention  of,  idolatry.  One  is  ready  to  ask  : 
When  could  this  book  have  been  written  ?  Under  good  kings, 
none  or  little  of  the  oppression  and  perversion  of  justice,  so 
often  complained  of,  would  exist ;  the  bad  kings  were,  nearly  or 
quite  all  of  them,  idolaters.  Yet  oppression  is  a  topic  rife  in  the 
book  ;  but  not  one  complaint  is  there  of  idolatry,  and  nothing  is 
said  of  the  heathen.  May  not  this  circumstance  have  some 
important  bearing  on  the  time  when  the  book  was  written  ? 

From  all  that  has  been  said,  Ave  may  safely  deduce  the  con- 
clusion, that  it  was  not  the  design  of  the  author  to  compose  a 
complete  Code  of  Morals.  His  great  theme  is  the  vanity  of  all 
earthly  objects  and  pursuits  ;  and  whatever  will  best  illustrate 
and  confirm  this,  we  may  expect  to  find  in  his  work.  Lesser 
things  are  omitted,  and  only  the  more  important,  which  will  leave 
a  deep  impression,  brought  to  view.  Having  gone  through  with 
these,  his  work  is  complete,  for  he  has  done  all  which  he  intended 
to  do. 

Having  stated  at  great  length  the  general  object  or  design  of 
the  book,  and  also  the  leading  particulars  which  it  comprises,  and 
everywhere  appealed  to  the  book  itself  in  the  way  of  verification, 
I  deem  it  unnecessary  to  canvass  at  any  length  the  many  and  dif- 
ferent theories  in  relation  to  this  subject.  I  shall  merely  glance 
at  some  of  them.  (1)  Some,  e.  g.,  Desvoeux,  Staudlin,  and 
Bolide,  make  the  author's  object  exclusively  a  religious  one. 
But  the  small  portion  of  the  book,  which  bears  directly  on  this 
subject,  will  hardly  sustain  this  view.  (2)  Others,  e.  g.,  Luther, 
Bauer,  Gaab,  Bertholdt,  Ilaenlein,  Jahn,  and  Schmidt,  make  it 
a  practical  essay,  designed,  as  some  of  them  assert,  to  teach  us 
how  to  live  joyfully  and  quietly  amidst  the  sorrows  and  troubles 
of  life  ;  others,  to  show  us  how  to  avoid  suffering ;  others,  how 


58  §2.  SPECIAL  DESIGN  AND 

to  bear  with  sorrow  and  joy,  good  fortune  and  misfortune ;  others, 
to  stop  the  mouths  of  complaining  and  murmuring  men ;  others, 
to  direct  all  our  efforts,  and  keep  them  within  due  bounds.  All 
of  these  theories  have  some  foundation  in  particulars  here  and 
there  of  the  book,  but  only  in  particulars.  The  general  tenor 
of  the  book  does  not  correspond  with  any  of  them.  (3)  Others 
admit  a  theoretical  design.  Herder,  Eichhorn,  De  Wette,  and 
Friedlander,  state  simply,  that  the  author  designed  to  show  the 
vanity  of  human  affairs.  So  far  as  this  goes,  since  it  has  a  gen- 
eric aspect,  it  is  correct;  but  it  does  not  of  itself  cover  the 
whole  ground,  as  we  have  seen  above.  (4)  Paulus,  Umbreit, 
and  Koster,  maintain  that  the  subject  is  the  inquiry :  What  is 
man's  highest  good  in  his  present  state?  But  this  gives  the 
book  too  much  the  aspect  of  theoretical  Greek  philosophizing. 
(5)  Doderlein,  Van  der  Palm,  and  Rosenmuller,  state  the  object 
to  be  both  theoretical  and  practical,  viz.,  to  show  the  nothingness 
of  human  life  and  human  things,  and  to  give  practical  rules 
which  grow  out  of  this.  Rosenmuller  adds,  that  the  author  de- 
signs to  show  how  a  man  may  enjoy  present  good,  and  live  virtu- 
ously and  piously  so  as  to  please  God.  This  comes  near  to  the 
true  mark.  Knobel  has  done  best  of  all :  "  The  design  is,  to 
show  the  nothingness  of  human  life  and  efforts,  and  to  impart 
such  practical  instruction  relative  to  the  conduct  of  men,  as  their 
present  condition  demands"  Comm.  s.  39. 

It  is  hardly  worth  mentioning,  that  Kaiser,  a  man  of  some 
note  for  learning  and  acuteness  in  Germany,  has  found  in  Cohe- 
leth  an  allegorico-historical  poem,  exhibiting  the  lives  of  the 
Jewish  kings  from  Solomon  down  to  Zedekiah.  In  constructing 
this  fancy-work  he  has  shown  much  acuteness,  exhibited  vast 
reading  and  extensive  learning,  and  manifested  a  shrewdness  at 
combination  which  is  uncommon.  So  far  as  I  know,  he  has 
never  made  a  single  convert  to  his  opinion.  Few  minds  out  of 
Germany  are  gifted  with  such  powers  of  discovery,  as  are  devel- 
oped here  in  his  schemes.    They  may  well  rest  contented,  however, 


METHOD  OF  THE  BOOK.  59 

with  their  lack  of  such  a  rare  gift  as  this  writer  seemed  to  him- 
self to  possess. 

It  is  a  striking  fact,  that  most  interpreters  of  Coheleth  have 
found  in  it  no  'plan  at  all.  It  is  made  up,  in  their  view,  of  various 
apothegms,  proverbs,  maxims,  etc.,  thrown  together  without  re- 
gard to  order  or  method,  and  is  a  real  thesaurus  of  miscellanies. 
Nachtigal  maintains  that  it  is  a  collection  of  rival  songs,  gathered 
from  various  Schools  of  the  Prophets.  This  deserves  the  next 
place  to  the  plan  of  Kaiser.  What  has  been  adduced  above  in 
order  to  show  the  nature  of  the  plan,  renders  any  discussion 
here  of  Nachtigal's  view  unnecessary.  Umbreit,  Van  der  Palm, 
Spohn,  and  Paulus,  find  this  work  filled  with  transpositions  of  or- 
der, and  dislocations.  "Whoever  reads  the  book,  however,  with 
attention,  when  placed  in  the  light  that  has  of  late  been  cast 
upon  it,  will  need  no  other  refutation  of  such  a  theory. 

Others,  e.  g.,  Michaelis,  Rosenmuller,  Van  der  Palm,  and 
Paulus,  divide  the  book  into  two  parts  (to  which,  however,  they 
assign  diverse  limits),  in  the  one  of  which  the  vanity  of  things 
is  established,  and  in  the  other  precepts  are  given  how  to  demean 
one's  self,  and  how  to  secure  any  good.  Koster  makes  four 
divisions.  (1)  "  Disclosure  of  the  absolute  good.  (2)  Of  the 
relative  good.  (3)  The  fool  and  the  wise  are  contrasted,  and 
true  wisdom  pointed  out.  (4)  This  wisdom  is  considered  in  its 
relation  to  the  various  conditions  of  life."  But  it  would  be  very 
difficult  to  draw  palpable  lines  of  separation  between  these  parts, 
or  to  show  that  they  do  not  intermingle  with  each  other.  Her- 
der, Eichhorn,  Friedlander,  and  Doderlein,  acknowledge  a  gen- 
eral unity  of  the  book,  and  a  somewhat  regular  progress  in  its 
contents.  But  as  to  any  preconcerted  plan  of  arrangement  in 
respect  to  particulars,  they  think  that  nothing  certain  can  be  made 
out.  The  contents  have  throughout  a  general  relation,  but  the 
particulars  are  too  miscellaneous,  as  they  think,  to  be  separated 
and  arranged  in  any  specific  order. 

In  a  work  such  as  that  before  us,  and  after  the  representations 


CO  $2.  SPECIAL  DESIGN  AND 

given  above  of  what  has  been  actually  done  by  the  author,  no 
one  will  expect  that  the  critic  can  make  out  a  regular  and  formal 
disposition  of  the  whole,  after  the  manner  which  modern  logic 
and  rhetoric  would  demand.  As  has  already  been  said  (p.  33), 
the  Hebrews  were  strangers  to  the  training  of  schools  of  art,  and 
their  writings  never  exhibit  any  special  regard  to  it.  But  still, 
there  is  "  a  beginning,  a  middle,  and  an  end,"  in  Coheleth,  inde- 
pendent of  the  mere  local  position  of  its  contents.  His  first 
object  is,  to  show  the  vanity  of  human  efforts  and  of  all  earthly 
tilings  in  which  men  seek  satisfaction.  This  part  comprises  the 
first  four  chapters.  He  begins  with  the  unchangeable  order  of 
things  in  the  natural  world.  Over  this,  man  can  acquire  no  in- 
fluence, and  have  no  control  (1 :  4 — 11).  He  then  proceeds,  in 
various  ways,  to  illustrate  and  establish  the  position,  that  all 
human  efforts  to  obtain  abiding  good  in  the  present  world  arc 
vain  and  fruitless.  The  acquisition  of  wisdom,  or  riches  or  hon- 
ors, and  also  indulgence  in  sensual  pleasure,  fails  of  its  end.  The 
most  to  which  one  can  attain,  is  to  enjoy  the  fruits  of  his  toil  in 
the  sober  gratification  of  natural  appetites.  Providence  has  so 
arranged  the  vicissitudes  of  things,  that  they  all  have  their  regu- 
lar course ;  and  all  that  we  can  do  is  merely  to  submit  to  this, 
having  no  power  to  change  or  arrest  it.  After  all  the  strivings 
of  men,  all  go  down  to  the  grave,  and  perish  in  common  with 
other  living  creatures  around  them.  In  fact,  so  multiplied  are 
the  sorrows  of  life,  resulting  from  man's  weakness,  and  spring- 
ing from  oppression,  and  from  vain  strife  for  wealth  and  defeated 
projects  of  ambition,  that  it  is  better  to  die  than  to  live  (1:12 
— 4:1G). 

Thus  far  the  theory  of  the  book.  In  all  this,  there  is  only 
some  three  or  four  hints  of  a  practical  nature,  such  as  2  :  24. 
3:12,13.  4:G,  9.  These  seem  to  proceed  from  spontaneous 
bursts  of  feeling,  which  are  occasioned  by  reflection  on  the  sub- 
ject-matter  before  him.  But  the  general  theory  being  thus 
established,  he  now  comes  to  the  part  where  he  mingles  precept 


METHOD  OF  THE  1)0  OK.  Gl 

and  practical  instruction  with  the  representation  of  facts  and 
occurrences.  In  4:  17  of  the  Hebrew  (it  should  be  5  :  1,  as  in 
our  English  translation),  he  first  begins  to  speak  imperatively  or 
in  the  way  of  exhortation.  His  very  first  topic,  now,  is  that  of 
religion.  Frequenting  the  place  of  worship,  prayer,  offerings, 
and  vows,  are  here  brought  to  view,  and  instructions  are  given. 
Thence  he  proceeds  to  descant  on  a  variety  of  topics,  with  which 
the  happiness  and  comfort  of  men  are  deeply  concerned.  Several 
of  these  topics,  e.  </.,  riches,  wisdom,  the  oppression  of  rulers,  etc., 
are  introduced  again  and  again,  as  occasion  prompts,  and  in  order 
to  present  them  in  all  their  important  aspects.  In  the  course  of 
this  part  of  his  work,  divers  objections  are  presented ;  some  of 
which  are  answered  forthwith,  and  some  after  intervening  matter 
lias  been  thrown  in,  which  pressed  upon  his  mind.  To  trace  the 
course  of  thought  through  this  part  of  his  work  requires  not  a 
little  of  study  and  effort.  Most  commentators  have,  indeed, 
abandoned  all  effort  to  trace  any  connection  here,  or  to  find  any 
general  thread  of  discourse  —  any  generic  unity  in  the  whole. 
But  the  intelligent  and  diligent  reader  may  still  find  reward  here 
for  his  toil. 

When  we  come  to  chap,  ix.,  the  whole  discourse  takes  a  differ- 
ent turn.  We  have  thenceforth  no  more  of  the  desponding 
declarations  :  All  this  have  I  seen  ;  all  this  hare  I  tried;  no  more 
of  the  cheerless  conclusion  :  All  this  is  vanity.  The  doubts  and 
queries  are  dismissed,  and  chap,  ix.,  stands  on  new  ground.  The 
ultimate  conclusions  to  which  Coheleth  has  come,  after  examining 
into  the  whole  matter  before  him,  are  now  brought  before  us. 
God  is  supreme,  and  all  things  and  all  men  are  in  his  hands.  lie 
has  made,  and  intends  to  make,  no  distinction  between  men,  as  to 
their  mortality  and  exposedness  to  suffering.  This,  although  it 
is  a  source  of  much  concern  and  sorrow,  must  be  borne  as  hav- 
ing been  appointed  by  him.  Rational  and  cheerful  enjoyment,  so 
far  as  practicable,  he  permits  and  even  enjoins.  Moreover,  wis- 
dom may  alleviate  some  evils,  and  prevent  some  others ;  so  that 

6 


C2  §2.   SPECIAL  DESIGN  AND 

although  it  is  not  itself  the  chief  good,  and  cannot  of  itself  secure 
solid  and  lasting  happiness,  it  may  be  of  much  use,  even  in  (he 
common  affairs  of  life.  In  the  midst  of  exposure  to  oppression 
and  misfortune,  it  may  help  to  direct  our  conduct,  so  far  as  to 
avoid  as  much  evil,  and  secure  as  much  good,  as  is  possible.  A 
diligent  observance  of  active  duty,  and  a  thankful  enjoyment  of 
what  can  be  enjoyed,  are  the  sum  of  what  we  can  do  to  mitigate,  , 
the  sorrows  and  trials  of  life.  Through  all  and  in  all  witbv 
which  we  are  concerned,  and  at  all  seasons  of  life,  God  is  to  be 
remembered,  and  also  his  judicial  power  to  be  recognized.  Then  /  . 
comes,  as  a  very  apposite  conclusion  to  the  whole,  a  description 
of  old  age,  and  its  preparation  for,  and  approach  to  the  tomb. 
Here  the  writer  rises  above  himself,  and  breaks  out  into  a  strain 
almost  purely  poetical.  In  his  own  mind,  he  looks  back  on  all 
the  various  struggles  and  suffering  of  life  which  had  preceded ; 
and  now  he  goes  on  to  show  here,  that  the  end  of  life  must  be 
after  the  like  tenor  with  the  preceding  part  of  it.  It  ends  in 
weakness,  rendered  more  grievous  by  infirmity  and  sorrow.  The 
dust  returns  to  dust.  And  as  he  has  before  declared,  that  there 
is  an  appointed  time  for  retributive  justice  to  be  executed,  so  the 
soul  returns  to  the  God  who  gave  it,  in  order  that  this  may  be 
accomplished. 

Thus  ends,  very  appropriately,  the  book  before  us.  Its  end  is 
consonant  with  its  beginning.  The  final  and  solemn  declaration 
over  the  grave  of  departed  man  is :  Vanity  of  vanities  !  All 
is  vanity  !  All  that  is  added  by  the  writer,  is  merely  a  brief 
account  of  himself,  and  of  his  object  in  writing  the  book  ;  which 
is,  that  we  should  fear  God,  and  keep  his  commandments, 

BECAUSE    HE  WILL    BRING    EVERY  WORK    AND     EVERT    SECRET 
THING    INTO    JUDGMENT    BEFORE    HIM. 

After  having  taken  such  an  extended  view  of  the  method  and 
design  of  Ecclesiastes,  T  venture  to  say,  that  those  who  regard 
the  book  as  without  plan,  and  without  any  unity  of  design,  can 
hardly  have  read  it  with  becoming  attention.     Plan  there  is  not, 


METHOD  OF  THE   BOOK.  C3 

in  the  modern  logical  and  rhetorical  sense  of  that  word,  as  has 
already  been  fully  conceded  j  but  as  to  a  definite  design,  and  the 
general  features  of  its  execution,  there  can  hardly  be  any  room 
for  doubt.  In  a  word,  it  is  Hebrew  philosophizing,  and  not  Greek 
or  English  philosophizing. 

And  now  a  word  more  on  the  great  question  so  often  asked  : 
"How  could  the  writer,  if  he  believed  in  future  retribution,  have 
everywhere  avoided  bringing  it  into  view  ?  Where  else,  in  such 
a  world  as  he  describes  this  to  be,  could  any  one  go  for  comfort? 
"Where  else  find  a  ray  of  hope  ?  It  is  spontaneous  with  us,  when 
we  look  at  the  multiplied  evils  of  life,  to  resort  to  the  future 
world  as  a  ground  of  hope  and  satisfaction.  We  look  to  a  future 
tribunal,  to  satisfy  our  minds  concerning  the  justice  of  God,  and 
we  feel  that  his  providential  dealings  are  all  to  be  vindicated  and 
reconciled  at  that  tribunal.  Why  did  not  Coheleth  act  in  the 
same  way  ?  " 

After  having  so  fully  discussed  this  subject  above  (p.  46  seq.), 
and  also  in  my  Commentary  (on  3  :  17),  it  is  needless  for  me  to  say 
much  here.  But  I  may  remark,  that  there  is  something  of  the 
a  'priori  in  this  demand  on  Coheleth.  We  decide  within  our- 
selves rather  what  he  ought  to  have  -written,  than  occupy  ourselves 
only  with  what  he  has  written.  But  passing  this,  let  me  in  all 
sincerity  and  earnestness  ask:,  Is  there  any  more  reference,  in 
the  copious  Book  of  Job,  to  a  future  state,  than  in  the  brief  one 
of  Coheleth  ?  There  can  be,  as  I  think,  but  one  answer.  There 
is  not  anything  like  as  much  reference  of  this  nature  ;  and  what 
there  is,  or  what  is  implied,  is  far  short  of  Coheleth  in  explicit- 
ness.  I  am  aware  that  many  readers  will  start  at  this,  and  point 
me,  with  confidence  that  I  am  mistaken,  to  that  famous  passage 
in  Job,  19:25  seq.,  beginning  with:  I  know  that  my  Redeemer 
liccth,  etc.  But,  alas !  I  cannot  accede  to  their  exegesis.  On 
the  contrary,  I  think  it  can  be  shown  beyond  the  reach  of  fair 
philological  contradiction,  that  the  passage  has  no  reference  to 
Christ,  Christianity,  or  the  final  resurrection  of  the  body.     It  is 


G4  §  2.   SPECIAL  DESIGN  AND 

simply  the  declaration  of  Job,  ready  to  faint  under  the  accusa- 
tions of  his  friends  (which  were  that  he  was  suffering  because  of 
some  peculiar  and  heinous  guilt);  and  his  declaration  that  he  still 
hoped  in  God,  who  would  yet  appear  as  his  vindicator  (":'-"). 
lie  trusted  that  he  would,  at  some  future  period  (*,*i"nx),  take  his 
stand  on  earth  (as  he  did,  see  in  chap,  xxxviii.,  coming  in  the 
whirlwind),  and  rescue  him,  though  wasted  away  to  a  skeleton- 
state  (''"itosra)  ;  so  that  he  should  still  see  him,  when  restored  to  a 
state  of  renewed  strength  and  health.  "  I  shall  see  him"  exclaims 
he,  "for  myself  with  my  oivn  eyes  behold  him  ;  but  not  a  stranger 
or  enemy"  [shall  behold  him].  That  is,  I  shall  see  him  on  my 
side,  taking  my  part ;  but  these  my  accusers,  who  act  like  stran- 
gers or  enemies  to  me,  shall  not  see  him  taking  their  part.  Such 
was  the  fact,  see  38  :  1  seq.,  and  compare  42  :  7.  But  if  this 
alleged  resurrection  of  Job  means  the  final  resurrection,  how 
shall  we  solve  the  nodus,  which  is  presented  by  the  allegation  that 
Job  will  see  him,  but  not  his  accusers  ?  Were  they,  then,  to  have 
no  part  in  the  resurrection  ?  Other  insuperable  difficulties  might 
be  urged  against  this  view  of  the  passage  ;  but  I  am  digressing. 
Yet  not  altogether  so,  for  it  was  incumbent  on  me  to  sustain  my 
allegation  relative  to  the  proportional  mention  of,  or  reference  to, 
the  future,  in  the  two  books  before  us.  Indeed,  I  hesitate  not  to 
say,  that  no  book  in  the  Old  Testament  has  so  many  references 
to  the  retribution  and  judgment,  at  a  future  period,  as  that  of 
Coheleth.     For  proof  of  this,  I  refer  to  the  views  given  above. 

In  respect  to  God,  there  is  no  part  of  the  Old  Testament 
which  inculcates  more  thoroughly  the  fear  of  him,  reverence  for 
him,  his  supremacy,  and  his  sovereign  right  to  order  all  things 
and  direct  all  concerns.  In  what  part  of  the  Old  Testament  is 
there  more  spirituality  as  to  worshipping  him  inculcated,  or  the 
fear  of  offending  more  emphatically  enjoined  ?  See  4  :  17 — o  :  G 
(5:1 — 7).  and  other  passages  quoted  on  page  42  seq.,  above. 
There  is,  indeed,  in  the  Psalms,  more  of  adoration  and  praise, 
and  thanksgiving,  and  confession,  and  supplication;  and  all  this 


METHOD  OF  THE  BOOK.  65 

for  the  obvious  reason,  that  the  Psalms  arc  composed  for  this 
very  purpose,  and  of  course  are  made  up  of  such  matter,  Put 
even  in  the  Psalms,  numerous  as  they  arc,  there  arc  not  so  many 
passages  concerning  future  retribution,  as  in  this  book;  nor  is  the 
character  of  God  set  forth,  and  his  claims  vindicated,  with  a 
stronger  hand.  But  if  we  go  to  the  Pentateuch,  the  great  work  of 
the  Jewish  lawgiver,  we  find  scarcely  a  trace  of futurity,  excepting 
what  rests  on  mere  implication  or  inference.  How  came  it  that 
Moses  did  not  present  to  the  rebellious  and  idolatrously  inclined 
Jews  of  his  time,  the  awful  terrors  of  the  world  to  come  ?  Yet 
in  that  solemn  chapter  on  blessings  for  obedience,  —  that  fearful 
chapter  on  curses  for  disobedience  (written  at  the  close  of  Moses' 
life,  Deut.  xxviii.),the  blessings  consist  of  abundance  as  to  the 
necessaries  and  comforts  of  life,  protection  from  enemies  and 
superiority  over  them,  and  increase  in  numbers  with  great  re- 
nown. Even  "the  first  commandment  with  promise,"  in  the 
Mosaic  law,  offers  no  better  promise  than  protracted  length  of 
days  in  the  goodly  land.  On  the  other  hand,  the  curses  are 
drought,  famine,  pestilence,  and  various  other  diseases,  loss  of 
children  and  of  property,  slavish  subjection  to  foreign  nations, 
and  finally,  exile  in  a  foreign  land.  Why  did  Moses  stop  here  ? 
"Why  not  hold  up  before  that  perverse  generation  all  the  terrors 
of  the  future  world  of  woe,  and  all  the  allurements  of  the  world 
of  2>eace  and  joy  ?  Can  any  one  give  any  other  reason  for  this, 
than  that  which  has  already  been  suggested  above,  viz.,  that 
under  the  ancient  dispensation  there  was  but  the  dawning  of  the 
day  which  was  to  come?  Life  and  immortality  were  to  be 
brought  fully  to  light,  only  by  him  who  is  the  Light  of  the  world. 
"  No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time."  Neither  Moses,  nor  the 
prophets,  lived  under  any  more  light  than  shines  in  the  dawn  of 
revelation.  What  God  had  not  yet  revealed,  they  could  not  fully 
disclose.  At  all  events,  they  have  not  fully  disclosed  any  more 
than  some  of  the  first  elements  of  future  things ;  and  even  their 
hints  respecting  these,  are  few  and  far  between.     Readers  of  our 

6* 


C6  §  2.  SPECIAL     DESIGN    AXD 

day  find  much  of  a  future  world  in  the  Old  Testament  only  by 
carrying  back,  to  the  interpretation  of  it,  what  they  have  learned 
in  the  New  Testament.  The  only  proper  question  is  simply  : 
What  did  the  Old  Testament,  interpreted  without  the  aid  of  the 
New,  fairly  disclose  to  the  Jews? 

When  this  question  is  asked,  I  venture  to  assert,  without  the 
fear  of  being  reasonably  contradicted,  that  Coheleth  has  more 
often  alluded  to  future  retribution,  and  more  strongly  affirmed  it, 
than  any  other  writer  in  the  Old  Testament.  Can  any  one  find 
such  a  retribution  in  the  Pent.,  histories,  prophecies,  Psalms, 
Proverbs,  more  often,  or  more  plainly  than  here  ?  I  look  in  vain 
for  anything  like  the  frequency  of  his  allusions  to  an  adequate 
retribution,  in  any  part  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  of  the  same 
length  as  Coheleth.  In  the  Book  of  Job,  which  most  of  all  resem- 
bles that  of  Ecclcsiastes,  in  its  theme  ;  the  friends  of  Job  warmly 
defend  the  idea  of  an  adequate  retribution  in  the  present  life. 
Sin  is  speedily  followed,  as  they  maintain,  by  condign  punish- 
ment. Job  as  warmly  denies  this ;  and  God  has  decided  that  he 
was  in  the  right,  42  :  7.  How  could  such  a  dispute  be  so  zeal- 
ously and  perseveringly  maintained,  in  case  the  subject  of  retri- 
bution had  been  fully  revealed  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  ?  I 
trust  the  answer  to  this  will  not  be,  that  the  Book  of  Job  was 
written  before  the  other  Scriptures.  When  brought  to  the  tribu- 
nal of  impartial  criticism,  this  assertion,  as  nearly  all  now  con- 
cede, cannot  well  stand  the  test.  The  composition  bears  evident 
marks  of  a  time  nearly  synchronous  with  that  of  Coheleth.  The 
same  subject  is  discussed.  The  same  difficulties  and  objections 
are  urged.  But  Coheleth  takes  a  position  opposite  to  that  of 
Job's  friends ;  and,  while  conceding  the  point  of  imperfect  and 
merely  initiatory  retribution  in  the  present  world,  it  still  main- 
tain -  thai  it  is  to  be  confidently  expected  at  a  future  period.  One 
i>  reminded,  at  vx^vy  step,  as  he  is  surveying  the  ground  of 
Coheleth,  of  the  kindred  feelings,  sentiments,  and  even  diction 
in  the  Book  of  Job. 


METHOD  OF  THE  BOOK.  C7 

Now  we  do  not  undertake  to  eject  the  Book  of  Job  from  the 
Canon  v because  we  cannot  appeal  to  the  speeches  of  Job's  friends 

as  authority,  in  establishing  any  point  of  doctrine.  I  say  cannot 
appeal,  because,  as  God  himself  (42  :  7)  has  plainly  declared 
that  those  friends  had  "  said  the  things  concerning  him  which 
lucre  not  right"  it  follows  surely  that  we  cannot  now  appeal  to 
what  is  not  right,  in  order  to  establish  a  doctrine.  Many  things, 
indeed,  which  Job's  friends  said,  were  true ;  but  the  truth  rests 
not  on  their  authority.  It  must  be  established  elsewhere,  and  by 
other  means.  We  do  not  receive  it  as  true  because  they  said  it, 
but  because  experience  or  some  of  the  sacred  writings  have 
established  its  truth. 

Let  all  this,  so  plain  and  so  reasonable,  be  applied  now  to 
Coheleth.  The  objections  to  the  great  truths  which  he  declares 
are  no  more  binding  on  us  than  the  speeches  of  Job's  friends, 
or  the  arguments  of  objectors,  introduced  so  often  by  Paul.  This, 
when  thoroughly  considered  and  carried  out,  removes  most  of 
the  difficulties  in  Coheleth,  and  places  him  in  the  rank  of  those 
who  in  ancient  times  taught  the  doctrine  of  a  future  retribution, 
gave  precepts  in  accordance  with  this  truth,  and  disclosed  sub- 
lime and  vivid  conceptions  of  the  holiness,  the  power,  the  sover- 
eignty, the  wisdom,  and  the  goodness  of  God.  The  question, 
why  he  did  not  more  explicitly  urge  the  great  spiritual  truth  to 
which  I  have  alluded,  is  one  that  justice  to  him  requires  us  to 
ask  respecting  all  the  other  sacred  writers  of  the  Old  Testament. 
And  if  Ave  do  ask  it,  the  answer  is  plain.  In  this  state  of  things, 
then,  we  are  permitted  to  repeat  again  the  question,  which  has 
been  asked  before,  viz.,  Why  should  more  be  demanded  of  Co- 
heleth than  of  any  other  Old  Testament  writer  ? 

In  canvassing  the  question  respecting  the  design  of  the  book, 
and  showing  that  it  was  neither  to  teach  Epicureanism  nor 
Skepticism,  I  have  taken  a  wider  range  than  I  had  at  first  in- 
tended. The  questions  of  interest,  more  or  less  connected  with 
the  leading  theme  here,  demanded  discussion  somewhere  ;  and 


68  §3.  UNITY  OF  THE  LOOK. 

although  rigid  regard  to  order  might  have  placed  some  of  them 
under  another  category,  no  special  advantage  to  the  discussion 
of  them  could  be  gained  by  transferring  them  thither.  Liberally 
interpreted,  my  category  is  ample  enough  to  comprise  them  all. 
The  general  nature  of  the  work ;  the  design  of  it  as  mani- 
fested by  the  principal  theme,  and  by  the  various  topics  of 
discussion  ;  the  method  in  which  the  writer  has  pursued  the 
attainment  of  his  object,  as  developed  first  in  the  respective  parts 
of  the  book  and  then  in  the  modes  of  representation  and  discus- 
sion ;  —  all  these  have  now  been  developed  with  sufficient  copi- 
ousness. We  may  proceed,  then,  to  other  subjects  of  interest 
that  yet  remain  to  be  discussed. 

§  3.     Unity  of  the  Booh. 

After  all  that  has  been  said  above  in  developing  the  design 
and  method  of  the  book,  little  need  be  said  under  the  present 
category.  Its  unity  is  manifest  from  the  fact,  that  the  book  has 
a  beginning,  a  middle,  and  an  end,  all  consentaneous  ;  as  has 
been  fully  shown  above.  It  is  manifest  from  the  fact,  that  the 
great  theme  —  all  is  vanity  —  is  repeated  some  twenty-three 
times  in  different  portions  of  the  book ;  which  shows,  beyond 
any  reasonable  doubt,  that  the  same  writer  who  proposed  the 
theme,  has  carried  on  the  discussion  of  it  through  the  work.  It 
is  granted,  that  there  are  some  digressions.  Yet,  when  strictly 
examined,  they  are  found  to  be  very  few.  The  sententious  con- 
sists mainly  in  precept;  the  apothegmatic  (which  really  consti- 
tutes but  a  very  minute  portion  of  the  work)  is  introduced  not 
for  its  own  sake,  as  in  the  Book  of  Proverbs,  but  only  for  the 
sake  of  comparison  and  illustration.  But  wherever  sententious 
precept  or  apothegm  is  introduced,  they  are  speedily  dismissed, 
and  there  is  a  return  to  the  consideration  of  some  one  of  the 
vanities  of  human  plans  and  efforts,  which  is  presented  in  a  new 
attitude.     There  is  not  a  book  in  all  the  Old  Testament,  unless 


§3.   UNITY   OF  TIIK   BOOK.  G9 

it  be  the  Book  of  Daniel,  which  is   more  firmly  compacted\ 
together  in  its  principal  framework,  nor  one  which  keeps  more 

steadily  in  view  the  great  ohjeet  which  is  designed  to  be  accom- 
plished. All  this  renders  it  utterly  improbable  that  the  works 
of  different  authors  are  here  joined  together.  We  can  reason- 
ably expect  such  an  arrangement  only  from  the  hand  of  one  and 
the  same  author. 

To  him  who  can  read  and  duly  appreciate  the  original  Hebrew, 
nothing  can  be  said  that  will  convince  him  of  a  diversity  of  au- 
thorship. First  of  all,  the  language  or  diction  is  so  strikingly 
sui  generis,  that  no  other  book  in  the  Old  Testament  approaches 
near  to  it.  There  is  plainly  a  peculiarity  —  a  something  to  be 
felt,  however,  rather  than  described  —  which  runs  through  the 
book  from  the  beginning  to  the  end.  No  careful  reader,  as  it 
seems  to  me,  can  possibly  doubt  of  this.  The  impress  of  the 
writer  upon  the  book  throughout,  is  nearly  or  quite  as  palpable 
as  is  that  of  Daniel  on  his  work ;  and  it  would  be  difficult  to  say 
more  of  any  book.  I  cannot  hesitate  to  say,  that  the  writing  is 
as  strongly  marked  throughout,  as  (for  example)  the  works  of 
Thomas  Carlyle  of  the  present  day.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that 
the  peculiarity  of  it  is  as  revolting  to  simple  and  refined  taste  as 
his  ;  for  this  I  do  not  believe,  and  cannot  admit.  But  the  modes 
of  expression  in  Coheleth,  and  the  diction,  and  the  distinctive 
kinds  of  development  which  he  employs,  are  altogether  as  differ- 
ent and  as  segregating  from  others,  as  are  those  of  Carlyle. 
There  arises  a  feeling,  in  every  one  who  reads  Coheleth  with 
a  power  of  nice  critical  discernment,  which  makes  it  all  but 
absolutely  certain  that  one  and  the  same  hand  penned  down  the 
whole  book.  Almost  without  exception  this  is  now  conceded 
among  critics. 

Time  has  been,  as  has  been  said,  when  there  were  various 
theories  on  this  subject.  Paulus  maintained  that  the  book  ex- 
hibits what  passed  in  a  discussion  of  a  Literary  Society  of 
the  writer's  day,  of  which  he  was  a  member.      The  theory  of 


70  §4.  DICTION   OF  THE  BOOK. 

Nachtigal,  that  the  book  consists  of  rival  poems  derived  from 
different  schools  of  the  prophets,  which  are  strung  together  like 
Wolf  and  Heyne's  different  rhapsodies  of  various  poets,  eking 
out  one  Iliad  at  last,  has  been  previously  mentioned.  But  first, 
we  know  nothing  of  such  literary  discussions  among  the  prophets. 
Secondly,  the  book  is  not  poetry.  Lastly,  the  several  parts  are 
not  put  together  without  order  and  sequency.  Others  have 
maintained  the  mere  fragmentary  state  of  the  book,  —  fragments 
joined  together  by  some  unknown  hand.  Staudlin  maintained 
that  the  book  first  consisted  of  various  rough  sketches  of  Solo- 
mon, which  were  subsequently  brought  together,  filled  up,  and 
then  some  junction-links  added.  Others  have  given  it  out  as  a 
mere  mass  of  aphorisms,  brought  together  from  all  quarters,  like 
the  Book  of  Proverbs,  and  thrown  under  one  category  for  the 
Bake  of  mere  convenience.  In  point  of  extravagance  and  im- 
probability, Kaiser  and  Nachtigal  may  deservedly  claim  the 
preeminence ;  and  even  such  a  preeminence  is  not  destitute  of 
attractions  for  some.  The  sober  inquirer  has  reason  to  be  thank- 
ful that  a  better  day  has  dawned  on  philological  pursuits. 

It  would  be  useless  to  pursue,  at  any  greater  length,  the  ques- 
tion in  respect  to  the  unity  of  the  book  before  us.  The  general 
and  particular  grounds  for  admitting  this  have  been  briefly 
stated ;  and  we  need  not  urge  the  proof  of  a  proposition,  which 
no  good  Hebrew  scholar  now  ventures  to  call  in  question. 

§  4.    Diction  of  the  Boole. 

Long  ago  Luther  remarked,  that  "  this  book  has  singularem 
quondam  phrasin,  quae  a  communis  linguae  usu  saepe  recedit,  ct 
a  nostra  conoid  inline  valde  aliena  est."  This  is  entirely  correct 
and  true,  as  to  diction  and  peculiarity  of  phraseology.  One  rea- 
son doubtless  is,  that  the  book  is  of  a  different  tenor  from  any 
other  in  the  Old  Testament.  Where  else  is  there  a  book  of 
philosophizing  ?     And  would  not  this  bring  with  it,  of  necessity, 


§  1.    DICTION    OF  THE  BOOK.  71 


pome  new 


terminology  and  new  words,  just  as  it  does  with  us? 
As  to  the  younger  books  of  the  Old  Testament  (such  as  Dim., 
Ezra,  Neh.,  Esth.),  they  have  themes  entirely  discrepant  from 
those  in  Coheleth,  but  still  present  many  words  belonging  only 
to  the  later  Hebrew,  and  therefore  common  to  them  and  Cohe- 
leth. Many  a  phrase,  however,  in  the  latter,  appears  nowhere 
else ;  and  many  phrases  and  words  here,  which  do  appear  else- 
where, have  a  sense  different  from  that  in  other  books. 

The  formulas  of  phraseology  first  claim  our  attention.  Not 
a  few  of  these  take  their  rise  from  the  course  of  thought  and 
inquiry.  A  large  portion  of  the  book  is  occupied  with  giving 
the  results  of  the  author's  own  experience  and  trials.  To  desig- 
nate this,  he  commences  with  rm*h  T^j  I  turned  myself  to  see, 
2  :  11.  But  oftener  still  he  says  simply:  Wfcn,  I  perceived, 
1 :  14;  3  :  10;  4 :4;  5  :  12;  6  : 1;  7  :  15;  8  :  9, 10,  18;  9  :  13;  10  :  7. 
Again,  he  says  :  T\T}h  ^niSG ,  I  turned  myself  in  order  to  know, 
7  :  25  ;  2:20.  When  he  speaks  of  continued  or  repeated  inves- 
tigation, he  varies  the  phraseology  somewhat ;  as,  fitful  '•rati , 
again  I  saw,  or,  Wfitl  "n'^,  /further  considered,  3:16;  4:1,7; 
9:11.  With  a  slightly  different  meaning  still,  he  says:  TnP3 
^ab-nx ,  /  directed  or  gave  my  mind,  viz.  to  the  consideration  of 
this  or  that,  9:1. 

In  order  to  designate  the  thoughts  produced  in  his  mind  by 
experiment  or  reflective  contemplation,  he  says :  ^sb?  ^rH^x ,  / 
said  to  myself  or  in  my  mind,  i.  e.  I  thought,  3  :  17,  18 ;  comp. 
2:1;  8:14;  9:16.  With  the  same  meaning  he  employs  WEi 
labs  or  ^h  d3>,  1 :  16;  2  :  15.  In  expressing  a  definite  senti- 
ment, to  which  he  had  come  by  experience,  he  says:  "Tii&n,  / 
saw,  2  :  13,  24  ;  3  :  22  ;  5:17;  8:17.  He  also  employs  TfiBrg , 
I  knew,  1  :  J  7;  2  :  24;  3  :  12,  14  ;  and  sometimes  iflStta , 1  found, 
7  :  27,  29  ;  comp.  3:11;  7:14;  8:17. 

Next  as  to  the  objects  of  consideration  or  examination.  The 
generic  phraseology  (used  as  it  were  adjectively)  for  designating 
sublunary,  earthly,  human  things,  is  that  they  are  EElFfi  ~~JD? 


72  §4.    DICTIOX  OF  THE  BOOK. 

under  the  sun,  1  :  14;  2  :  11,  17,  18,  10,  20,  22 ;  3  :  1G ;  4:1,  3, 
7,  15  ;  5  :  12,  17  ;  6  :  1,  12  ;  8  :  9,  15,  17  ;  9  :  3,  G,  9,  11,  13  ;  10  :  5. 
Sometimes,  instead  of  this,  we  have  t^rn  nnn,  undo-  heaven, 
1:3;  3:1.     Once  more,  simply  "j7^^  bs ,  on  earth,  8  :  14,  1G. 

Tilings  or  objects  themselves  are  called  "lS'n  or  D*na^,  i.  e. 
tf/miy  or  things  in  the  secondary  sense  of  these  words  (see  Lex.), 
1:8,  10;  6:11;7:8;  8:1,  3,  5.  The  meaning  comprises  both 
actions  and  events.  When  events  are  meant,  the  verb  T^r\  is 
connected  with  -a1! ,  and  then  the  phrase  means  thing  that  has 
happened,  occurred,  or  taken  place,  1:9;  3:  22;  6:12;  8:7; 
10  :  14 ;  11 :  2.  When  actions  are  spoken  of,  then  the  verb  Htors , 
done,  performed,  is  employed ;  1  :  9,  13,  14 ;  2  :  17  ;  4  :  3  ;  8  :  14, 
1G  ;  9  :  3,  6.  The  active  form  of  the  verb  ft\B39  is  connected  with 
the  agent  who  does,  2:3;  3:9;  8  :  10.  Hence  the  participial 
nouns,  tvQ&Q ,  b^bs^o ,  are  the  predominant  designations  of  actions 
themselves,  1  :  14;  2  :  17,  22 ;  3  :  17  ;  4  :  3,  4;  8  :  9,  14 ;  9  :  7,  10. 
But  sometimes,  in  order  to  designate  what  we  appropriately  call 
business,  the  word  "an  is  used,  3  :  1, 17  ;  5  :  7  ;  8:6.  This  seems 
to  be  of  later  usage,  as  employed  in  this  sense.  In  a  like  sense 
is  I^SS  employed,  but  it  verges  on  the  meaning  of  disagreeable  or 
unfortunate  business,  as  in  1  :  13  ;  2  :  23,  26  ;  3  :  10 ;  4:8;  5:2, 
13;  8:16.  More  often  occurs  the  word  b^S1,  which  properly 
means  toil,  wearisome  labor,  1:3;  2  :  10,  11,  18,  20,  21,  22,  24 ; 
3  :  13  ;  4  :  4,  6,  8  ;  5  :  14,  17,  18  ;  6  :  7  ;  8  :  15  ;  9  :  9.  In  like 
manner,  the  verb  b^3  and  the  participial  £>»3  are  employed, 
meaning  to  perform  toil,  etc. 

The  result  of  toil  and  effort  is  sometimes  called  ■■Dd ,  reward 
or  advantage,  4:9;  9:5;  at  others,  pbn ,  portion,  part,  as  the 
res  i!t  of  labor,  2  :  10,  21 ;  3  :  22  ;  5  :  17,  18 ;  9  :  9  ;  but  finally, 
more  often  than  any  other  word,  does  he  employ  V'T*]-  advan- 
tage, profit,  avail,  1  :  3  ;  2  :  11  ;  3  :  9  ;  5  :  8,  15;  10  :  10,  11.  As 
to  all  efforts  which  fail  to  yield  solid  profit,  he  calls  them  JniJI 
rnn,  rvn  )i^,  lit.  a  wind:/  affair,  i.  e.  a  fruitless  business. 

The  destiny,  or  appointed  lot,  of  man  he  names  «T?pra ,  a  deri- 


$4.    DICTION  OF  THE  COOK.  73 

vate  of  rng ,  to  happen,  2  :  14,  15  ;  3:19;  9  :  2,  3,  11.  Some- 
times he  names  it  3>§B,  occurrence,  8  :  14.  iiW  destiny  he  calls 
an ,  rcn ,  6ot7,  misfortune,  2  :  21 ;  6 : 1 ;  8 :  6 ;  9  : 3  ;  10 :  5 ;  11 :  2, 

10;  12:1.  Sometimes  it  is  nbin  nn ,  a  grievous  evil,  5  :  12,  15  ; 
or  i"\  ^bn  ,  of  the  same  meaning,  6  :  2. 

All  the  efforts  and  occurrences  of  life,  taken  together,  he  calls 
bnn,  when  he  characterizes  them,  i.  e.  nothingness,  vanity ;  and 
this  he  does  some  twenty-five  times  in  the  book ;  see  on  page  21 
above.  Enjoyment  or  happiness  he  now  calls  itrraia ,  2  :  1,  2,  10  ; 
7:4;  8  :  15  ;  and  then  Sia  or  hate ,  2  :  1,  24 ;  4  :  8  ;  5  :  10,  17 ; 
6  :  3,  G  ;  7  :  14.  To  enjoy  good,  is  Sia  haw,  or  ttaia,  or  ai-2, 
2  :  24  ;  3:13;  5:17;  2:1;  6  :  G.     Once/arj  HbJ,  3:12. 

The  word  wisdom,  rrzzn ,  is  sometimes  equivalent  to  intelli- 
gence, power  of  insight;  e.  g.  1  :  18  ;  7  :  23,  24 ;  8  :  17  ;  in  which 
case  it  can  hardly  be  distinguished  from  tW .  But  usually  it 
denotes  practical  wisdom,  sagacity,  dexterity ;  as  in  2  :  21,  26; 
4  :  13  ;  7  :  19  ;  9  :  15,  1 6,  18  ;  10  : 1,  10.  The  religious  use  of  it,  as 
in  Psalms  and  Proverbs,  is  unfrequent  and  only  indirect  here. 
The  opposite  of  this  is  n&SO  ,  baG  ,  i.  e.  practical  folly,  manifested 
in  a  great  variety  of  ways,  and  assuming  a  variety  of  forms. 
For  example :  the  fool  exposes  his  folly,  10:3;  knows  not  how 
to  demean  himself  in  the  relations  of  life,  6:8;  undertakes 
things  in  a  wrong  way,  2 :  13,  14;  10  :  2,  15;  gives  loose  to 
paroxysms  of  indignation,  7:9;  blusters  among  fools,  9:17;  is 
given  to  prating,  10  :  14  ;  utters  language  injurious  to  himself, 
10  :  12 ;  gives  up  himself  to  lawless  pleasure,  2:3;  7  :  4,  5,  6 ; 
brings  himself  into  straits  by  idleness,  4:5;  breaks  his  vows, 
5:3;  and  the  like.  When  wisdom  has  a  relation  to  moral  deport- 
ment (7:16;  9:1  seq.),  it  of  course  resembles  the  religious  wis- 
dom (trcan)  of  other  books.  It  is  so  with  the  opposite  word, . 
nibalD ,  i.  e.  this  has  sometimes  the  sense  of  immorality  ;  see  7  :  7, 
17,  25.  An  equivalent  of  fraan  is  "paion,  consideration,  calcu- 
lation, 7  :  25  ;  9  :  10 ;  and  the  opposite  of  this  is  rwMjh,  1:17; 
2:12;7:15;9:3;  10:13.     The  phrases  to  know  or  see  wisdom 

7 


74  §4.   DICTION  OF  THE  BOOK. 

and  folly,  mean  to  understand  and  explain  them  in  their  various 
developments,  1  :  17 ;  2  :  12.  But  the  phrase,  the  heart  sees  wis- 
dom, means  that  it  is  itself  cognizant  of  it,  or  experiences  its 
power. 

The  work  of  God,  Coheleth  designates  in  a  variety  of  way?. 
The  omnipotent  and  immutable  control  of  God  is  called  nr1] 
ft^XJl ,  the  work  of  God,  7:13;  8:17;  11:5.  When  he  con- 
trols the  actions  and  destinies  of  men,  it  is  said  d^JI^K  "jra ,  i.  e. 
lit.  God  gives,  puts,  or  places,  1:13;  2:26;  3:1 0;  5:17,  18; 
G  :  2  ;  8  :  15  ;  9  :  9.  His  kindness  is  rm ,  the  gift  of  God,  3:13; 
5:18;  comp.  2:24. 

Many  of  the  above  words,  and  some  of  the  phrases,  are  else- 
where used,  but  rarely  in  such  a  sense  as  here.  The  reader  of 
Hebrew  in  the  other  books,  when  he  meets  such  phrases  here, 
feels  himself  to  be  treading  on  new  ground.  (1)  New  phrase- 
ology and  new  meanings  of  words  arise  from  the  novel  subject 
of  which  the  writer  is  treating,  i.  e.  his  philosophizing  on  the 
vanity  of  the  world.  He  was  at  liberty,  like  all  other  writers, 
to  choose  language  adapted  to  his  own  purpose.  We  see  in  it 
little  indeed  of  technicality  ;  but  still  we  perceive  that  we  are  by 
no  means  reading  the  common  Hebrew  of  the  other  books.  But 
it  would  be  far  from  candor  and  fairness  to  accuse  Coheleth  of 
imacquamtance  with  good  Hebrew  usage,  because  he  feels  him- 
self constrained  to  employ  terms  and  phrases  not  elsewhere  to 
be  found.  Caique  suum.  It  is  his  right  to  choose  language 
adapted  to  the  nature  of  his  discussion.  But  (2)  There  are 
other  peculiarities,  which  spring  not  of  necessity  from  the  nature 
of  the  subject,  but  belong  properly  to  the  peculiar  and  charac- 
teristic  style  of  the  author.  There  is  a  prolixity,  or  frequency  of 
repetition,  in  a  part  of  the  phraseology,  particularly  such  a  part 
a-  marks  transitions  of  any  kind.  I  said  in  myself;  I  turned  to 
see;  I  saw ;  I  knew ;  and  the  like,  are  repeated  beyond  any 
example  in  the  Scriptures;  and  repeated  where  our  present 
method  of  writing  would  readily  dispense  with  them.     This  is 


§4.    DICTION    OF   THE    BOOK.  75 

often  done,  without  any  important  addition  to  the  general  mean- 
ing ;  and  is,  therefore,  indicative  of  peculiarity.  Among  these 
repetition.-,  however,  Ave  must  not  reckon  those  cases  in  which 
repetition  is  employed  merely  in  order  to  make  out  intensity  of 
expression  ;  e.  g.y  Z :  2,  6 ;  3  :  1G  ;  4:1;  9:9,  etc. 

To  this  general  category,  moreover,  in  an  enlarged  sense, 
belong  many  pleonasms  of  expression,  such  as  the  following,  viz. 
^aa  before  verbs  in  the  first  person,  in  cases  where  no  emphasis 
ia  required,  as  ^3!*  "VHSB ,  i!i«  hrnS"H ,  etc.  See  in  1  :  16;  2:1, 
11,  12,  13,  14,  15,  18,  20,  24;  3:  17,  18;  4:  1,  4,  7;  5:  17; 

7  :  25 ;  8  :  15  ;  9  :  16,  et  al.  Pleonastic  are  such  expressions  as 
fco-2  *33^X  D^  rj,  "  The  sea,  it  is  not  full,"  1  :  7  ;  "  To  their  posterity, 
to  them  shall  be  no  remembrance,"  1:11;  "  Woe  to  him,  to  the 
one"  4  :  10;  "lie  shall  take  hold  on  him,  on  the  one,"  4  :  12. 
The  like  3  :  18  ;  5  :  1 1,  al.  These,  indeed,  are  proper  Hebraisms  ; 
but  their  frequency  here  is  what  strikes  us.  The  discrepancy 
between  the  number  of  the  verb  and  its  subject,  in  2:7  and 
10  :  15,  al.,  is  an  unusual  thing,  although  certainly  not  without 
parallel.  In  the  hortatory  and  didactic  parts  of  the  book,  repe- 
titions like  the  above  are  unfrequent.  Indeed,  the  conciseness 
and  energy  of  expression  there  is  like  that  in  Proverbs  and  Job. 
See  in  chaps,  vii.,  x. 

Very  frequent,  unusually  so,  is  the  use  of  a  verb  and  its  conju- 
gate noun  ;  e.  g ,  tap  bo» ,  1  :  3  ;  2  :  11,  18,  19,  20,  22  ;  5:17; 
9:9.  So  rto?3  ni»,  1 :  14;  2:17;  3:11;  4:3;  8:9;  mg 
i-np-a  ,2:14;  T!?.  T>?  ,5:3;  £W  rt» ,  1  :  13  ;  3  :  10.  This  is 
genuine  Hebraism,  but  it  is  unusually  frequent  here. 

Another  marked  peculiarity  here,  like  that  in  the  Book  of 
Daniel,  is  the  frequent  use  of  the  participle  for  the  verb,  specially 
to  designate  present  or  continued  action  ;  as  sni* ,  r^h ,  tttoSJ ,  and 
the  like,  1:4,6,7;  2:14,19,21;  3:20;  4:5;  5:7,9;  6:12; 

8  :  12,  14,  16  ;  9:5;  10  :  3,  19  ;  12:5,  al.  Often  a  pronoun  is 
joined  with  such  participles,  thus  making  out  a  finite  verb,  as 
•»}$  «Sfe ,  snn  rni ,  etc. ;  as  1 :  5,  7  ;  3:21;  4:8;  7:26;  8:12; 


76  §4.   DICTION  OF  THE  BOOK. 

9:10.  The  participial  or  verbal  adjective  performs  the  same 
office  ;  as  S>B3  BMrt,  etc.,  2  :  18,  22 ;  3  :  9  ;  4 :  2,  8  ;  6 :  2 ;  9  :  9. 

A  negative  for  any  of  these  forms  is  made  by  yjst  with  a  suff. 
pronoun  of  the  subject,  e.  g.,  STP  5pn8,  thou  knowest  not ;  1:7; 
4:17;  5:11;  6:2;  8  :  7,  13,  16 ;  9  :  1,  2,  5,  16  ;  11  :  5,  6. 

The  use  of  b^  to  indicate  the  simple  if/zere  is  (like  the  French 
?7y  a),  is  beyond  precedent  as  to  frequency  ;  e.  g.,  1  :  10 ;  2  :  13, 
21;  4:8;  5:12;  6:1,11;  7:15;  8:6,  14;  9:4;  10:5. 

The  personal  pronouns  are  employed  here  with  peculiar  fre- 
quency in  a  sense  which  indicates  that  they  include  the  verb  m^n , 
to  he  ;  and  often  beyond  example  elsewhere  as  to  frequency,  they 
designate  merely  and  simply  the  verb  of  existence  itself;  e. g.,  Hi 
6MM  c5"Tn  ,  this  is  new,  1  :  10.  The  real  shape  of  the  Heb.  is  thus  : 
As  to  this,  it  is  new  ;  and  so  in  son  wfv&  T\T\-q  nt,  5  :  18,  et  al. 
But  in  Start  frans  dh'j ,  that  they  are  beasts,  we  cannot  well  apply 
the  same  solution,  for  the  last  pronoun  can  be  translated  only  by 
are,  3:18.  And  thus,  in  the  one  or  the  other  of  these  ways,  in 
1  :  5,  7 ;  2  :  1,  23,  24 ;  3  :  13,  15,  22 ;  4  :  2,  4,  8 ;  5:5,  8,  17 ; 
6:1,  2,  10;  7:2;  9:4,  13;  10:3,  al. 

The  book  never  employs  the  common  intensive  ^ap,  very, 
very  much.  Instead  of  this,  it  commonly  and  very  frequently 
employs  the  Inf.  of  Hiph.  SiSp.n  (lit.  multiplicando),  in  the  adver- 
bial sense  of  much,  very  much  (see  Heb.  Gramm.  §  98.  2.  d),  as 
1:16;  2:7;  5  :  6,  11,  16,  19  ;  6:11;  7:16,17;  9:18;  11:8. 
In  a  like  sense,  the  participial  ■vvfa  is  employed,  2:15;  7:16. 
The  opposite  negative  is  rr^xp  •px,  not  anything,  5  :  13  ;  9:5. 

The  pronoun  "IISX ,  specially  in  its  abridged  form  'O  ,  is  em- 
ployed in  a  greater  variety  of  ways  than  anywhere  else  in  the 
Scriptures ;  e.g.,{\)  That,  in  order  that ;  3:14;  6:10;  7:14; 
8  :  12,  14  ;  9:1,  5.  (2)  Because,  or  for  that;  4  :  3,  9  ;  6:12; 
8  :  11,  12,  13,  15  ;  10  :  15.  (3)  Provided  that,  if;  8  :  12. 
(4)  When;  8:16.  So  with  prepositions  before  the  pronoun; 
as  "TCWtS  or  tda ,  because,  on  account  of  that,  2:16;  3:9;  7:2; 
8:4.     So  *\p$3  and  &»,  when;  4  :  17;  5:3;  9  :  12;  10  :  3. 


H-    DICTION   or  THE  ROOK.  77 

In  like  manner,  "RQWD  and  ©E ,  £/?a>i  fAdrf,  than  ;  3:22;  5:4. 
Like  to  these  are  "VOX  IS,  tmft'Z  fAal ;  2  :  3 ;  ISBM  ^Sra?  without 
which,  etc.  This  is  explicable  on  the  ground  that  *ra»t  is  a  note 
of  relation  generally,  and  therefore  may  stand  between  sentences 
or  clauses  which  stand  related.  With  all  this,  the  use  of  on  in 
Hellenistic  Greek  may  be  well  compared. 

(3)  Coheleth  contains  very  much  which  belongs  to  the  later 
Hebrew.  From  this  are  to  be  distinguished  (if  indeed  we  can 
make  the  distinction)  the  Chaldaisms  of  the  book,  or  (to  speak 
more  generically)  the  Aramaeisms.  The  allegations  often  made 
in  regard  to  these,  and  made  even  by  such  a  critic  as  Knobel,  are 
somewhat  extravagant,  and  certainly  in  a  measure  ungrounded. 
Herzfeld  has,  with  great  acuteness,  gone  through  the  list  of  Kno- 
bel, and  made  much  abatement  from  it.  With  him  let  us  con- 
sider — 

I.  The  later  Hebrew  element.  Knobel  attaches  to  this 
category  the  following  words,  winch  cannot  properly  be  put 
there;  and  which,  for  convenience  sake,  may  be  divided  into 
tico  classes,  viz. :  (a)  Those  which  are  also  found  in  the  old 
Hebrew,  but  which,  as  he  says,  have  in  Coheleth  a  new  sense 
attached  to  them  ;  viz.,  ytri ,  thing,  affair,  3:1,17;  5:17;  8:6. 
But  this  sense  is  not  new.  In  Prov.  31  :  13  is  the  same  meaning. 
So  7^'r*9  ?  priest,  5:5;  but  the  word  is  everywhere  used  in  the 
old  Hebrew  in  a  sense  which  well  fits  this  passage,  viz.,  the  mes- 
senger of  God  who  declares  his  word,  and  the  meaning,  priest,  is 
not  necessary  in  Coheleth ;  and  so  too,  in  respect  to  this  word,  in 
Hag.  1  :  13  ;  Mai.  2:7;  3  :  1.  —  rnp?  (five  time.-)  means  des- 
tiny ;  but  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word  is  occurrence  ;  and  in 
this  sense  we  find  it  in  Ruth  2:3.  —  TO,  to  rise  up,  to  stand 
forth,  8  :  3,  he  says  is  new  ;  but  the  answer  is,  that  the  verb  has 
not  that  sense  here,  for  it  means  to  continue  to  stand,  to  persevere, 
which  meaning  it  has  also  in  Josh.  10:13;  1  Sain.  20:38; 
Ezek.  21  :  35.  —  Again,  "inxs,  together,  11:6;  but  we  have  the 
same  word  in  the  same  sense,  in  Is.  65  :  25,  which  at  all  events 
7* 


78  §4-    DICTION  OF  THE  BOOK. 

is  not  -written  in  the  style  of  the  later  Hebrew  —  r'srrbs ,  alto- 
gether as,  5  :  15  ;  but  this  is  a  form  of  intensity  merely.  The 
word  M33  itself  is,  in  the  like  sense  as  here,  an  ancient  one,  Ex. 
25  :  27 ;  28  :  27.  —  T^7?  (7^  in  10:18)  is  used  in  the  same 
sense  as  the  old  "word  Spa,  to  roti  to  moulder  away  ;  but  the  ex- 
change of  forms  in  verbs  Ayin  Vaf  and  Ayiri  doubled  is  an  old 
custom,  extant  in  many  verbs  from  the  beginning  of  the  written 
language.  Moreover,  in  Job  24  :  24,  is  found  the  Hophal  of  this 
form,  as  is  the  Kal  in  Ps.  106  :  43.  The  plur.  noun  in  10  :  12, 
i.  e.,  rvirsto ,  instead  of  the  dual,  is  no  novelty,  as  Knobel  alleges ; 
see  Ps.  45  :  3. 

The  numerous  nouns  in  Ecc.  which  end  in  M-,  Knobel  sets 
to  the  account  of  the  younger  Hebreiv,  not  venturing  to  call  this 
Chaldaism,  because  the  ancient  Heb.  has  the  same  forms.  The 
instances  are  rvfcVn,  tvftb*,  nttbo,  wtao,  nibaio,  Msi,  rrn^ 
rftbBB .  But  abundance  of  the  same  forms  are  in  the  older  He- 
brew ;  e.  g.,  see  Gen.  1 :  26  ;  38  :  14.  Ex.  8  :  19  ;  11  :  2  ;  14  :  25  ; 
28  :  22.  Num.  24  :  7  ;  32  :  14.  Deut.  24  :  1 ;  29  :  18.  Ps. 
22:20;  110:3.  Prov.3:8;  4:24;  9:13;  23:29;  27:4. 
Hos.  6  :  11.  Amos  1:6.  Is.  2  :  11  ;  12  :  5  ;  21  :  2  ;  21 :  4.  Hab. 
3  :  14,  al.  The  only  difference  is  in  frequency  ;  a  thing  which 
belongs  to  the  style  of  the  writer,  and  not  to  the  species  of  the 
Hebrew. 

As  to  nouns  in  ")-,  and  tep — ,  which  he  puts  to  the  account  of 
the  younger  Heb.,  they  abound  in  the  older.  They  are  indeed 
unusually  frequent  in  Ecc. ;  e.  g.,  ■£»,  "pnaa,  "jro\,  ynon,  "j^it;, 
■j'TWS,  yiaun,  "fiaifn.  But  the  same  forms  are  found  in  Gen. 
24:53;  38:11.  Ex.  25  :  23.  Lev.  1  :  2.  Hos.  9  :  1.  Gen. 
3:16;  13:18;  33:2;  35:8;  38:17;  40:5,17;  41:36; 
42:19.  Ex.  12:14;  15:7;  16:23;  21:30.  Num.  21:20; 
25  :  4.  Deut.  8  :  15  ;  15  :  4 ;  28  :  22,  65  ;  32  :  10.  Judg.  3  :  23  ; 
8:21.  Hos.  9:11.  Is.  1:  1 ;  8:1;  9:13;  22:13;  32:14; 
25:5  j  36:4;  47:9.  Prov.  1  :  22;  15  :  11  ;  26  :  26.  Ps.  32:4; 
92:4;  besides  many  proper  names  of  this  form,  as  "jis?,  "pa^n, 


§4.  DICTION  OF  THE  BOOK.  70 

yiWl,  etc.  And  there  are  many  such  forms,  besides  those  which 
are  here  produced. 

If  one  will  now  call  to  mind  how  often  abstracts  are  required 
in  a  treatise  of  philosophy  like  the  present,  he  will  think  it  noth- 
ing strange,  and  no  special  proof  of  later  Hebrew,  that  such 
nouns  are  frequent  in  Coheleth.  There  are,  however,  only  a  few 
here  that  are  not  elsewhere  found,  viz.,  yw,  yttOn,  "pWj,  Ti'tttto) 
fiatdh  (as  an  abstract)  "pW,  IWi,  Ti»^?.  The  easy  and  obvi- 
ous formation  of  these  for  the  writer's  purpose,  renders  it  diffi- 
cult for  us  to  establish  anything  from  them  in  regard  to  the  age 
of  such  forms.  The  use  of  them  depended,  obviously  and  merely, 
on  the  need  of  them  ;  for  the  form  is  altogether  normal  and  anal- 
ogous. 

The  same  principle  wrill  apply  to  the  frequent  use  of  rnn 
t^h-\  and  CTOSJln ,  scarcely  found  anywhere  else.  The  great  ques- 
tion in  Ecc.  is,  the  vanity  of  earthly  things.  An  adjective  from 
"fy^  the  Heb.  has  not;  and  to  make  the  so  often  necessary 
sense  of  earthly,  the  writer  had  to  betake  himself  to  circumlocu- 
tion. But  the  Heb.  itself,  in  both  expressions,  is  old;  and  the 
meaning  here  is  not  new.  The  use  belongs  to  the  nature  of  the 
subject,  and  to  the  style  of  the  writer,  and  is  not  to  be  ascribed 
to  the  later  Hebrew. 

The  plur.  D*4ihl,  for  the  Host  High,  in  5  :  7,  is  no  indication, 
as  is  asserted,  of  later  usage.  We  have  D^1J3  for  the  Most  Holy, 
in  Hos.  12  :  1,  and  the  like  elsewhere.  So  ",73  "pri,  without,  2  :  25, 
does  not  therefore  belong  to  the  Rabbinic  Hebrew  (where  it  is 
common),  because  we  find  this  compound  form  of  the  word  no- 
where else  in  the  Heb.  Scriptures.  We  have  \  "pn  and  "prra 
in  the  old  Heb. ;  and  what  hindered  the  use  of  "pa  'pn  ?  The 
argumentum  a  silentio  proves  little  in  such  a  case.  And  the 
like  may  be  said  of  WfflTtj  in  11  :  10,  which  is  employed  in  the 
Mishna,  and  put  by  Knobel  to  the  account  of  Rabbinism.  The 
word  is  truly  poetical,  normally  formed,  and  beautifully  applied. 

Perhaps  Coheleth  himself  first  coined  it.     But  it  is  so  exactly 


80  §  4.  DICTION  OF  THE  BOOK. 

analogous  to  the  multitude  of  the  earlier  Heb.  words  which  have 
the  same  form,  that  nothing  can  be  argued  from  its  use  as  to  the 
lateness  of  the  book. 

Knobel  sets  to  the  account  of  later  Hebreio  the  usage  of  Ecc. 
in  rejecting  the  imperf.  with  Vav  consecutive  in  narration,  e.  </., 
in  chap,  ii.,  which  gives  the  history  of  Coheleth's  experience. 
So  much  is  true,  viz.,  that  only  the  later  Hebrew  neglects  this 
usage ;  which  (by  the  way)  none  of  the  other  Semitic  dialects 
exhibit  at  all,  except  that  the  Arabic,  in  one  case,  only  has  some 
approach  to  it  in  the  shortened  Future.  But  still,  there  is  so 
very  little  of  historical  narrative  in  the  book,  that  much  cannot  be 
made  out  of  this.  The  Imperf.  with  Vav  consecutive  is  altogether 
appropriate  to  the  historical,  and  not  being  needed  here,  it  is  not 
employed.  If  the  book  were  of  a  historical  nature,  then  some 
argument  might  be  adduced  from  this  peculiarity. 

Knobel  also  insists  that  1»,  so  often  used  for  "OS,  is  Talmudic. 
But  the  frequency  alone  can  be  appealed  to  here  ;  for  the  use  of 
this  form  (l»)  is  ancient ;  see  Judg.  5  :  7;  G  :  17  ;  7  :  12  ;  8  :  26.  Job 
19:  29.  In  Cant,  (of  uncertain  age)  it  occurs  32  times;  and  in 
the  Psalms,  17  times.  In  the  Talmud,  it  has  almost  expelled 
-vis  ;  but  in  Coheleth,  it  is  used  68  times,  and  *RBSs  89  times. 
We  have  better  evidence  still  of  its  antiquity.  Gesenius,  in  his 
Monumenta  Ling.  Phoenic.  (see  Hal.  Lit.  Zeit.  1837,  No.  81), 
thus  expresses  himself:  "The  Phenician  Remains  are  more  kin- 
dred to  the  later  than  to  the  earlier  Hebrew ;  e.g.,  the  relative  is 
always  IB  instead  of  "NSJK;  an  important  circumstance  for  the  his- 
tory of  the  Hebrew  language."  Truly  it  is  so  ;  for  the  Phenician 
Remains  can  have  come  only  from  the  earlier  era  of  the  lan- 
guage.  I  acknowledge  that  it  is  difficult,  in  reading  Coheleth,  to 
avoid  the  feeling  that  we  have  a  kind  of  Rabbinic  diction  in  the 
frequency  with  which  we  meet  xo ;  and  yet  we  see  that  in  the 
Phenician  (a  daughter  of  the  older  Hebrew)  we  have  this 
abridged  form  even  to  the  entire  exclusion  of  the  other.  In  this 
predicament  we  cannot  make  much  out  of  this  argument. 


§  4.  DICTION  OF  THE  BOOK."  81 

We  have  then,  after  having  examined  Knobel's  list  of  the 
later  Hebrew  words,  only  a  few  remaining.  Of  those  which  will 
best  bear  the  test,  there  remain  nnii  in  the  sense  of  more  than  ; 
3WQ,  10:20,  found  elsewhere  only  in  Dan.  and  Chron.  ;  "JDa, 
8  :  10,  elsewhere  only  in  Esth.  4  :  1G  ;  Vr,  8:17,  compounded  of 
^■"itiK  ,  but  even  this  is  found  only  in  Jonah  1:7,  12  ;  &K,  6  :  0. 
4  :  10,  a  compound  prep.,  like  the  later  ones,  elsewhere  only  in 
Esth.  7:4;  and  *<«,  woe  !  4  :  10  ;  10  :  16,  frequent  in  the  Talmud 
only.  To  these,  noticed  by  Knobel,  some  more  are  added  by 
Herzfeld,  viz.,  b  TQS ,  2  :  9,  to  stand  by  or  aid  one  ;  nf™,  prov- 
ince, 2:8;  elsewhere  only  in  Lam.,  Daniel,  Ezek.,  and  Xeh. ; 
"ids ,  11 :  6,  to  prosper,  instead  of  the  earlier  fibs,  elsewhere  only 
in  Esth.  8  :  5.  Perhaps  the  insertion  of  the  pronoun  ^3i<  after 
a  verb  in  the  1st  pers.,  and  without  any  special  emphasis,  may 
be  put  to  the  later  usage  ;  for  this  is  rare  in  the  earlier  Hebrew. 

As  to  WT) ,  followed  by  lariba  (instead  of  *vao),  in  4 :  10;  10  :  1G, 
and  put  by  Herzfeld  himself  to  the  later  Hebrew,  we  find  it  in 
1  Sam.  18 :  12  ;  B^BSa,  5  :  1,  is  also  found  in  Ps.  109  :  8 ;  B^BM, 
treasures,  5:18;  G  :  2,  is  found  in  Josh.  22  :  8  ;  and  as  to  fifis  in 
6 :  5  ;  4  :  6,  we  have  it  in  Is.  30  :  15.  These  must,  therefore,  be 
excepted  from  his  list. 

Taking  the  amount  of  what  is  left,  we  find  only  some  10  or  11 
cases,  which  may  fairly  be  brought  within  the  confines  of  later  He- 
brew. And  some  doubt  must  even  hang  over  these.  It  cannot 
for  a  moment  be  assumed  that  the  present  Hebrew  Scriptures 
contain  all  the  stores  of  the  ancient  language.  Very  many  words 
it  must  have  had  which  are  not  here  employed,  and  many  also 
it  employed  in  different  senses  from  those  which  are  now  to  be 
found.  Where  the  words  are  normally  constructed,  and  where, 
following  analogy,  they  might  have  been  easily  constructed  and 
readily  used  in  ancient  times,  although  they  do  not  now  appear 
in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  we  can  hardly  affirm  with  confidence 
that  this  wrord  and  that  belong  only  to  the  later  Hebrew.  The 
case  of  t>  for  *flS3«  in  the  Phenician  (which  is  surely  a  dialect  of 


82  §4.  DICTION   OF  THE  BOOK. 

the  old  Hebrew),  is  full  of  instruction  and  caution.  The  most 
that  we  can  say  is,  that  we  find  this  word  and  that  only  in  the 
later  Hebrew  books.  Books  of  the  same  age  have  nearly  the 
same  idiom ;  and  from  this  general  principle  we  may  draw  &orne 
conclusion  as  to  the  time  when  Coheleth  was  written. 

II.  The  Chaldee  element.  To  this  Knobel  attributes  r", 
12:3.  But  Hebrew  derivates  of  this  root  are  found  in  Is. 
28  :  19  ;  Hab.  2:7;  so  that  the  word  must  be  Hebrew.  Again, 
&53,  2  :  8,  26 ;  3  :  5,  is  no  Chaldee  word  ;  for  we  have  it  in  Is. 
28:20;  Ps.  33  :  7  ;  147  :  2.  — *C3  ,  11 :  6;  10  :  10,  is  not  Chaldee ; 
neither  is  yhttfel ;  for  we  have  rvhffiJSp  in  Ps.  68 :  7,  and  lir-s  in 
Prov.  31:19;B^i;2:  19;  5:18;  6:2;  8  :  9, is  also  Heb.,  as  irrr, 
Gen.  42  :  6  shows.  So  "pirn  must  be  called  Heb. ;  for  we  have 
rnnii  in  Est.  29  :  13.  — rttvna  is  of  late  use,  but  is  not  Chaldee ; 
see  Lex.  Also  "jSpE,  4:13;  9:15,  16,  is  Heb.;  for  we  have 
Heb.  forms  from  the  root  in  Is.  40:20;  Deut.  8:9.  —  tW^p, 
5  :  18  ;  6  :  2,  is  not  Chaldee ;  for  we  find  it  in  Josh.  22  :  8. —  Cjio, 
3  :  1 1 ;  7  :  2,  is  found  also  in  Joel  2  :  20,  which  shows  it  to  be 
Hebrew.  It  is  difficult,  moreover,  to  see  why  Knobel  puts  0^5 , 
2  :  5,  among  the  Chaldaisms ;  for  it  is  found  in  Cant.  2:5;  and, 
at  most,  we  cannot  tell  when  this  foreign  word  came  into  the 
Hebrew.  It  is  probably  of  Sanscrit  origin,  which  employs  para- 
desha  in  a  like  sense.  That  rpn  rfisn  and  rj*n  "pirn  may  be 
Hebrew  and  not  Chaldee,  is  shown  by  mi  nsh  Hos.  12:2.  In 
regard  to  the  Hebraicity  of  E)£ln  and  &p£fc ,  6  :  10,  see  Job  14  :  20 ; 
J 5  :  24.  For  the  form  of  the  latter,  see  tt^tt}  in  Gen.  42  :  6. 
That  *,:n,  8  :  10,  is  of  later  usage,  is  probable ;  but  there  is  no 
particular  evidence  of  its  being  Chaldee. —  vtoiB  is  as  little 
Chaldee  as  Tttjipa  in  Ex.  32:33.  That  ^O,  10:9,  is  Heb., 
see  Job  22  :  22  ;  34  :  9.  —  bbw  is  Chaldee  in  3  :  11,  only  in  case 
we  interpret  it  as  meaning  world.  But  as  this  exegesis  will  not 
bear,  we  strike  it  from  the  list.  See  the  remarks  on  3: 11,  in 
the  Comm.  That  1j2|,  uproot,  is  not  Chaldee,  is  shown  by 
Zeph.  2  : 4. 


§4.  DICTION  OF  THE  BOOK.  83 

As  to  forms:  Knobel  makes  BMif,  11  :  3,  a  C/ialdee  form  ;  but 
this  would  be  Btjfi*.  It  is  an  apoc.  form,  like  ^nnd^,  and  stands 
for  wrj  with  an  a  otiant.  And  so  is  K  otiant  in  6«in,  fcfn,  etc 
With  these  forms  the  verb  rnn  stands  connected.  —  bsn,  1:21, 
is  const,  of  bnn,  and  no  more  Chaldee  than  byj  which  comes 
from  b^y,  only  it  is  a  more  normal  const,  form.  —  Di^on,  4:14, 
Knob,  makes  it  to  be  Chaldaic,  because  he  supposes  it  to  be  = 
Di-noxfi ;  but  this  probably  is  not  so  (see  Comm.) ;  and  even 
if  it  were,  it  would  prove  nothimg,  for  in  many  Hebrew  words 
K  is  dropped  in  the  writing.  Finally,  that  rt|^S>  and  yrs,  4  :  2, 3, 
are  Chaldee,  is,  as  Herzfeld  says,  an  exegetical  hieroglyph  ;  for 
no  proof  is,  or  can  be,  adduced. 

We  come,  then,  to  a  small  list  of  what  may  be  called  'probable 
Ghaldaisms:  viz.,  ^SS,  1  :  10,  al.  saepe ;  b^n  for  cease,  12  :  3; 
-,£!•},  1 :  15 ;  7  :  13 ;  12 :  9,  to  make  straight  ;  ym,  10  :  8,  pit,  inr ;, 
9:1,  for  ntoWO  ;  d&nB,  8:11;  ^t,  3  : 1,  for  T& ;  and  last,  such 
Aramaean  forms  as  KSfc,  7:26;  RSSJ"]  ,8:1;  KSH,  8  :  12  ;  9  :  18  ; 
KSpa,  10:4;  tup,  10:5,  are  probably  conformities  to  Chaldee 
in  respect  to  their  final  vowel.  —  tiWi,  2  :  25,  and  *iia,  9:1,  are 
doubtful,  and  cannot  be  shown  to  be  Chaldaic. 

I  may  refer  the  reader  here  to  what  is  said,  at  the  close  of  the 
list,  of  later  Hebrew.  It  is  impossible  to  prove  that  more  or  less 
of  this  last  class  of  words  were  not  extant  in  the  older  Hebrew, 
or  that  they  are  not  normal  derivates  of  the  Hebrew.  But  this 
last  list  of  probable  Chaldaisms  is  small,  amounting  to  only  some 
eight  or  ten  words  at  most. 

I  am  much  indebted  to  Herzfeld  for  his  labors  on  both  parts 
of  this  list.  He  has  pursued  the  examination  with  a  diligence,  a 
discrimination,  and  an  accuracy,  that  are  worthy  of  all  commen- 
dation. 

The  general  result  is,  that  the  book,  for  so  short  a  one,  par- 
tab  3,  after  all,  somewhat  largely  of  the  two  elements  of  later 
Hebrew  and  Chaldee,  at  least  of  what  we  are  forced  to  regard  as 
s*uch.     That  its  style,  and  diction,  and  coloring  throughout,  re- 


8i  §5.  WHO  WAS  THE  AUTHOR? 

semble  most  of  all  the  later  books,  viz.,  Ezra,  Neh.,  Estli.,  and 
Daniel,  every  reader  familiar  with  these  books  must  feel.  That 
he  is  moving  in  an  element  greatly  diverse  from  that  of  the  ear- 
lier Hebrew,  becomes  a  matter  of  immediate  consciousness, 
when  one  reads  Coheleth.  This  is,  indeed,  no  objection  to  the 
book ;  for  the  later  Hebrew  may  convey  truth  as  well  and  as  in- 
telligibly as  the  earlier.  We  need  not  call  the  dialect  Doric  or 
Boeotian,  much  less  Yorkshire  or  Patois.  The  laws  of  grammar 
are,  for  the  most  part,  strictly  observed ;  the  forms  of  the  words 
are  normal ;  the  tenses  are  not  unskilfully  used,  but  the  contrary ; 
and  as  little  anomaly  is  found,  on  the  whole,  as  in  most  of  the 
later  books.  In  the  use  of  the  particles  there  is  great  latitude, 
specially  in  respect  to  1,  ^3,  a,  b,  and  the  conjunction  'ilB&t,  (t»)  ; 
and  in  this  respect  the  style  resenfbles  that  of  the  other  late 
books.  This  of  itself  is  an  indication  of  an  advanced  state  of' 
the  language,  which  must  always  be  changing. 

Having  been  through  the  preceding  investigations,  in  respect  to 
the  nature,  contents,  design,  form,  style,  and  diction  of  the  book, 
we  are  now  prepared  to  enter  upon  the  next  question,  in  which 
many  readers  will  feel  a  special  interest ;  viz., 

§  5.     Who  was  the  Author  ? 

If  this  question  be  referred  to  the  decision  of  past  times,  then 
is  it  easily  answered.  One  and  all  of  the  older  writers  declare 
for  Solomon.  The  tradition  in  the  Talmud  (Baba  Bath.  fol.  14, 
15),  that  Hezekiah  and  his  Society  wrote  (ttM,  wrote  out, 
copied)  Coheleth  and  some  other  books ;  or  the  saying  of  Rabbi 
Gedaliah,  that  Isaiah  ivrote  not  only  his  own  book,  but  Coheleth 
and  some  others  (Shalshel.  Hakkab.  fol.  (j(j)  ;  make  nothing 
against  the  general  position,  because  ara,  as  they  employ  it, 
means  merely  copied,  wrote  down,  or  wrote  out. 

So  far  as  I  know,  Grotius  was  the  first,  in  modern  times,  who 
raised  a  doubt  as  to  the  correctness  of  general  tradition  in  regard 


§5.  WHO  WAS  THE  AUTHOR?  85 

to  the  author  of  Ecclesiastes.  In  his  Comm.  he  says :  "  Ego 
tainen  Salomonis  esse  non  puto,  sed  scriptum  serius  sub  illius 
regis  tanquam  poenitentia  ducti  nomine."  He  then  goes  on  to 
adduce,  as  a  reason  for  this  opinion,  that  the  book  has  many- 
words  which  can  be  found  only  in  Daniel,  Ezra,  and  the  Chaldee 
Targumists.  Hermann  Yon  der  Hardt,  in  an  Essay  on  Ecc, 
endeavored  to  sustain  this  view,  by  the  like  arguments.  Against 
him  rose  up  Huet,  Calov,  Witsius,  Carpzov,  and  Van  der  Palm. 
So,  also,  most  of  the  older  critics,  S.  Schmidt,  Geier,  Le  Clerc, 
Rambach,  J.  D.  Michaelis,  L.  Ewaid,  Schelling,  etc.  On  the 
other  hand,  Grotius  found  many  ardent  defenders ;  such  as  Eich- 
horn,  Schmidt,  Doderlein,  Bauer,  Augusti,  Bertholdt,  Umbreit, 
De  Wette,  Rosenmiiller,  Gesenius,  Jahn,  Ewald,  Hitzig,  Heilig- 
stedt,  and  others.  Of  late,  scarcely  an  advocate  of  the  old 
tradition  has  appeared.  When  we  have  reviewed  the  ground 
occupied  by  the  question,  we  shall  perhaps  deem  it  strange  if  any 
future  critic  should  engage  in  such  an  undertaking. 

That  the  book  purports,  by  its  title,  to  be  the  words  of  Solo- 
mon, is  plain.  It  begins  thus  :  "  The  ivords  of  Coheleth,  the  son 
of  David,  king  in  Jerusalem."  King  belongs,  here,  to  Coheleth, 
as  being  in  apposition  with  it,  and  not  to  David,  which  merely 
connects  with  son.  Now,  no  one  of  David's  sons  was  king  in 
Jerusalem  excepting  Solomon.  Coheleth,  then,  was  Solomon  ; 
and  Coheleth  was  king.  So  v.  12  :  "I,  Coheleth,  was  king  over 
Israel  in  Jerusalem."  At  the  close  of  the  book,  Coheleth  again 
speaks  of  himself  and  his  work.  In  12  : 9  he  says  that  he  was 
a  crn ,  i.  e.,  a  Hakim  or  philosopher  in  the  ethical  sense,  and 
that  "he  sought  out  and  arranged  many  D^IBO,  which  con- 
tained words  of  truth."  But  no  reference  is  here  made  to  his 
kingly  condition. 

For  the  meaning  of  the  word  Coheleth,  I  must  refer  the  reader 
to  the  Comm.  on  1  :  1,  where  it  is  sufficiently  illustrated.  Al- 
though fern,  in  form,  it  is  masc.  in  sense,  as  the  masc.  verbs, 
everywhere  joined  with  it,  sufficiently  show.     It  is  like  our  titles 

8 


86  §  5.   WHO  WAS  THE  AUTHOR? 

of  excellency,  majesty,  grace,  highness,  etc.,  when  indicative  of 
office,  honor,  or  station.  So  Kaliph  in  Arabic  is  PEp^s ,  i.  e.,  it  is 
fern. ;  and  the  like  is  found  in  almost  every  language.  Preacher, 
in  the  common  sense  of  this  English  word,  Coheleth  was  not ; 
for  the  name  imports  nothing  more  than  that  he  addresses  as- 
sembled men  (possibly  including  the  idea  that  he  did  it)  in 
the  hortative  strain ;  at  least,  this  is  very  frequent  in  the  book 
before  us. 

Was  it  the  design,  then,  of  the  writer  of  this  book  to  declare 
himself  to  be  King  Soloman  ?  Or  does  he  introduce  Solomon 
purposely  upon  the  stage  as  an  agent,  and  give  us  what  he  might 
well  be  supposed  to  say  ?  In  other  words :  Is  Solomon  an  actor 
only  in  the  book,  or  is  he  the  real  author  of  it  ? 

Great  difficulties  lie  in  the  way  of  the  last  assumption.  (1 ) 
Many  things  are  said  by  Coheleth,  which  show  that  Solomon  is 
only  occasionally,  and  not  constantly,  speaking.  He  says  in  1 :  1 2, 
that  "  he  was  king  in  Jerusalem."  The  Praeterite  tense  here 
(pr'pn  I  was)  refers,  of  course,  to  a  past  time,  and  it  conveys  the 
idea  that,  when  the  passage  was  written,  he  was  no  longer 
king.1  But  Solomon  was  king  until  his  death,  and  could  there- 
fore never  have  said,  "  I  was  king,  but  am  not  now."     Then, 

1  A  frequent  secondary  use  of  the  Praeter  tense  of  the  Hebrew  verb  is  to 
"  indicate  a  state  of  being  which,  beginning  at  some  former  period,  still  con- 
tinues to  exist  at  the  time  of  narration."  See  Nordheimer's  Gram.  §  7G4, 
1  a,  and  references  there  ;  Stuart's  Roediger,  §  124.  3,  and  Coram.  3:15,  and 
6  :  10  below.  Compare,  also,  the  use  of  this  same  form  of  the  verb  rrr;  in 
Gen.  32  :  11.  Ex.  2  :  22  ;  18  :  3.  1  Sam.  29  :  8.  Jer.  2  :  31  ;  20  :  7  ;  23  :  9  ; 
31  :  9.  Ps.  31  :  12,  et  al.  saep.  There  should  seem  to  be  no  objection,  as  far 
as  the  language  is  concerned,  to  understanding  the  author  here  to  mean,  '■  I, 
Coheleth,  who  hold  the  office  of  king  over  Israel  in  Jerusalem."  It  is  true 
the  verb  might  have  been  omitted,  but  is  doubtless  used  for  the  sake  of  em- 
phasis. Without  the  verb  ^Vtt  ,  kinrj  would  have  been  a  mere  designation 
of  character  or  condition  ;  but  with  it,  emphasis  is  laid  upon  the  fact  that  he 
was  in  condition  specially  favorable  for  the  investigations  subsequently 
designated.  —  Ed. 


§  5.  WHO  WAS  THE  AUTHOR?  87 

again,  how  passing  strange  for  him,  as  Solomon,  to  tell  those 
whom  he  was  addressing  that  he  was  Icing  in  Jerusalem!  Could 
he  suppose  that  they  needed  to  be  informed  of  this  ?  But  a 
writer  in  times  long  after  Solomon  might  easily  slide  into  the 
expression  that  Coheleth  had  been  king. 

In  1 :  1G  he  says  :  "  I  acquired  more  wisdom  than  all  who  were 
in  Jerusalem  before  me."  Doubtless,  being  a  king,  he  compares 
himself  with  others  of  the  same  rank,  i.  e.,  with  kings  ;  and  how 
many  of  these  were  in  Jerusalem  before  Solomon  ?  One  only, 
viz.,  David.  Who,  then,  constitute  the  all?  It  is  only  a  later 
writer  who  would  speak  thus ;  and  even  such  a  one  could  so 
speak  only  by  omitting  any  special  reference  to  the  incongruity 
seemingly  apparent  in  the  declaration  as  attributed  to  Solomon. 
The  sentence  looks  like  that  of  some  writer  who  lived  after  there 
had  been  many  kings  at  Jerusalem.  Moreover,  in  the  mouth  of 
Solomon  himself,  this  would  wear  somewhat  of  the  air  of  self- 
magnifying  ;  while  a  later  writer,  who  admired  Solomon,  would 
naturally  speak  thus  of  him.  In  like  manner,  in  2  :  7,  9,  he 
speaks  of  surpassing,  in  various  respects,  "  all  who  were  in  Jeru- 
salem before  him."  But  in  the  respects  there  named,  only  kings 
could  well  be  brought  into  comparison  with  him  who  was  a  great 
king  ;  and  therefore  the  same  difficulty  arises  as  before. 

In  1 :  16;  2  :  9,  15,  19,  he  speaks  of  his  oivn  wisdom  ;  and  in 
this  he  tells  us  that  he  far  exceeded  all  others.  This  was  true, 
indeed,  of  Solomon  ;  but  it  was  hardly  the  dictate  of  modest  wis- 
dom to  speak  thus  of  himself.  A  later  writer  might  well  speak 
thus  of  him,  although  there  seems  to  be  some  little  incongruity 
in  attributing  the  words  to  him. 

If  4 :  8  could  be  shown  to  have  a  particular  personal  meaning, 
and  that  the  person  in  view  was  the  writer  of  the  book  himself, 
it  would  bring  before  us  a  striking  incongruity.  The  case  there 
supposed  is  one  where  the  individual  has  neither  son  nor  brother. 
Solomon  had  both.  But  my  apprehension  of  that  text  is,  that 
the  case  in  question  is  merely  one  sitjiposcd,  for  the  sake  of  illus- 


88  §  5.  WHO  WAS  THE  AUTHOR? 

tration.  But  in  4:14a  case  is  stated,  where  it  is  difficult  to 
avoid  the  conclusion  that  Solomon  and  Jeroboam  are  meant.  In 
this  case,  if  Solomon  be  the  writer,  then  he  speaks  of  himself  as 
"  an  old  and  foolish  king,"  while  Jeroboam  is  "  the  wise  and  pros- 
perous young  man."  This  would  sound  very  strangely  in  the 
mouth  of  Solomon. 

In  8  :  3,  an  adviser  is  introduced,  who  counsels  the  prudent 
course  of  obeying  the  king  in  everything.  This  would  not  be 
strange  for  a  king  to  say ;  but  when  one  clause  declares  that  the 
prudent  individual  "  must  not  hesitate  or  delay  even  in  respect  to 
a  wicked  command"  it  would  seem  very  singular  to  find  Solomon 
thus  characterizing  his  own  commands.  Then,  again,  when  the 
writer  gives  his  own  view  of  this  matter  of  unlimited  obedience, 
in  vs.  5,  6,  he  says,  that  such  indiscriminate  and  blind  obedience 
will  incur  the  guilt  of  sin,  and  bring  the  inevitable  judgment  of 
God  upon  him  who  yields  it ;  vs.  7,  8.  All  this  is  hardly  congru- 
ous with  Mngly  opinions. 

In  5  :  7,  the  wrriter  speaks  of  "  the  oppressing  the  poor,  and 
robbing  him  of  justice."  In  3  :  16,  he  says  that  "in  the  place 
of  judgment  and  justice  was  wickedness."  In  4  :  l,he  describes 
himself  as  a  witness  "  of  oppressions  which  were  committed,  and 
of  the  tears  of  the  oppressed  who  had  no  comforter."  In  7  :  7,  he 
declares  that  "  oppression  is  making  even  a  wise  man  mad."  In 
7:10,  he  alludes  to  "former  days  which  were  better  than  the 
present."  In  the  sequel  (v.  15),  he  speaks  of  "the  righteous 
man  as  perishing  because  of  his  righteousness,  and  the  wicked 
man  as  prolonging  his  days  by  his  wickedness."  In  8  :  9,  he 
speaks  of  "one  man  ruling  over  another  to  his  injury."  In 
10:4,  he  describes  rulers  as  being  passionate  and  excessive  in 
their  anger.  In  10  :  5 — 7,  he  describes  the  ruler  as  "  setting 
fools  on  high,  while  the  wealthy  and  princes  occupy  a  low  place, 
and  act  as  servants  of  the  fools."  In  10  :  16 — 19,  he  covertly 
speaks  of  rulers  as  gluttons,  drunkards  and  sluggards;  and  even 
in  blessing  such  kings  as  arc  of  an  opposite  character,  lie  says  the 


$5.  WHO  WAS  THE  AUTHOR?  89 

same  tiling  in  the  way  of  implication.  Can  we  now,  in  any  way, 
suppose  all  these  to  be  the  words  of  Solomon,  describing  himself 
as  a  haughty,  violent,  unjust,  tyrannical,  oppressor?  Was  he  a 
glutton,  a  drunkard,  and  an  idler  —  he  who  spake  3000 
proverbs,  wrote  1005  songs,  and  many  treatises  of  botany,  be- 
sides managing  wisely  all  the  affairs  of  his  kingdom  ?  1  K.  4  :  32 
seq.  Did  he  permit  the  land  to  be  full  of  oppressive  magistrates, 
who  caught  at  bribes,  condemned  the  righteous,  and  acquitted 
the  wicked  ?  Was  not  the  power  in  his  own  hands  to  remedy 
all  this,  and  to  do  judgment  and  justice  ?  And  yet  Coheleth 
says,  in  4 :  2,  3,  that  death  is  preferable  to  life,  under  the  then 
existing  oppression.  Yea,  in  his  impatience,  he  even  wishes  he 
had  never  been  born.  And  all  this  when,  if  Solomon  be  con- 
cerned in  the  matter,  it  was  at  any  moment  in  his  power  to  put  a 
stop  to  the  evils  complained  of!  How  is  it  possible  to  suppose 
that  Solomon  ascribes  all  this  great  wickedness  and  folly  to  him- 
self ?  Let  any  one  read  the  history  of  his  enlightened  and 
peaceful  reign,  as  given  in  the  books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles, 
and  he  will  see  a  picture  directly  the  opposite  of  all  this.  The 
matter  of  Solomon's  authorship,  in  respect  to  such  passages,  seems 
quite  impossible. 

(2)  The  general  state  and  condition  of  things,  when  this  booh 
was  written,  indicates  a  period  very  different  from  that  of  Solo- 
mon's reign.  We  must  keep  in  view  here  what  has  already  been 
said  above  respecting  the  civil  condition  of  the  kingdom,  and  the 
dreadful  oppression,  on  the  one  hand,  by  which  the  righteous 
were  persecuted  and  destroyed,  and  the  favoritism,  on  the  other, 
by  which  the  wicked  were  exalted.  This,  of  itself,  is  strong 
testimony  against  the  royal  authorship.  But,  beyond  this,  there 
was  a  general  gloom  that  overspread  all  ranks  and  conditions  in 
life.  Wherever  the  writer  turns  his  eyes,  he  sees  little  except 
vexation  and  disappointment  and  suffering.  So  deeply  are  all 
these  things  impressed  on  him,  that  even  the  joyous  youth  is 
cautioned  by  him  not  to  rely  for  a  moment  on  the  endurance  of 

8* 


90  §5.  WHO  WAS  THE  AUTHOR? 

any  good.  The  writer  is,  indeed,  very  far,  after  all,  from  being 
such  a  gloomy  cynic.  He  has  no  malevolent  or  embittered 
feeling.  But  he  sees  before  him,  on  all  sides,  innumerable  proofs 
of  the  frailty,  the  vanity,  and  uncertainty  of  human  life  and 
human  endeavors ;  and  also  the  utter  impossibility  of  effecting 
any  substantial  change  for  the  better.  He  comes  fully  to  the 
conclusion,  that  "  the  day  of  one's  death  is  better  than  the  day 
of  his  birth,"  7:1.  Does  all  this  look  like  being  written  during 
the  peaceful,  plentiful,  joyful  reign  of  Solomon  ?  —  such  a  reign 
as  the  Hebrews  never  saw  before  or  since  ?  To  my  mind  this 
seems  almost  impossible.  Every  writer  is  influenced  by  the 
things  around  him,  and  the  circumstances  in  which  he  is  placed. 
So  far  as  we  know  from  Old  Testament  history,  the  times  here  sup- 
posed and  described  belong  not  to  the  period  of  Solomon's  reign. 
It  is  true  that  this  king,  in  his  old  age,  was  guilty  of  back- 
sliding, and  that  he  was  chastised  for  it.  But  as  to  the  state 
of  his  kingdom  in  general,  it  seems  to  have  been  in  a  condition 
directly  opposite,  in  most  respects,  to  that  which  has  been 
described  above. 

The  passage  in  4:17,  speaks  in  such  a  way  respecting  temple- 
offerings  and  services,  as  hardly  accords  with  the  views  given  in 
1  K.  3  : 3  ;  4  :  15  ;  8  :  5,  62—64  ;  10  :  5  ;  11  :  7.  I  do  not  say 
that  Solomon  had  views  in  substance  contrary  to  the  spirit  of 
Ecc.  4  :  17,  but  that  the  methods  of  expression  there  adopted 
seem  foreign  to  the  condition  and  circumstances  of  him  who 
had  built  the  temple,  and  made  magnificent  preparations  for 
offerings. 

The  peculiar  passage,  in  7  :  26 — 28,  respecting  the  extreme 
baseness  of  women,  seems  hardly  consonant  with  the  views  of 
him  who  had  700  wives  and  300  concubines,  1  K.  11  :  1 — 8  ;  and 
who  was  devoted,  as  it  would  seem,  more  than  any  other  Jewish 
king  known  to  us,  to  amatory  enjoyments.  Another  and  later 
writer,  who  looked  attentively  at  the  history  of  the  close  of  Solo- 
mon's life,  might  well  speak  of  such  women  as  were  in  Solomon's 


§5'.   WHO   WAS   THE  AUTHOR?  91 

harem  as  he  has  done.  Most  of  them  were  probably  of  heathen 
origin  ;  comp.  vs.  2 — 5. 

(3)  Another  source  of  doubt  as  to  the  authorship  of  Solomon 
springs  from  the  style  and  diction  of  the  book. 

Whoever  comes  from  an  attentive,  critical  reading  of  the  Book 
of  Proverbs,  written  or  compiled  by  Solomon  for  the  most  part, 
to  that  of  Coheleth,  will  find  himself  in  a  region  entirely  new. 
"William  of  Malmesbury  is  scarcely  more  diverse  from  Macau- 
lay,  or  Chaucer  from  Pope,  than  Coheleth  is  from  Proverbs.  It 
is  impossible  to  feel  that  one  is  in  the  hands  of  the  same  writer. 
The  subjects  are  exceedingly  diverse.  In  Proverbs,  incontinence, 
falsehood,  lying,  deceiving,  marriage,  parents  and  children,  edu- 
cation, neatness,  industry,  thrift,  and  the  like,  are  the  subjects 
treated  of;  in  Coheleth,  the  vanity  of  all  things,  the  nothingness 
of  human  ends  and  aims,  the  oppression  of  wicked  rulers,  and 
the  like,  are  the  theme  throughout.  Of  all  these,  there  is 
scarcely  anything  in  the  Book  of  Proverbs.  However,  this 
would  not  prove  much,  if  it  stood  alone ;  for  the  same  writer 
might  change  his  theme.  But  when  we  come  to  the  coloring  of 
the  style  and  diction,  it  is  impossible  to  make  out  anything  but 
the  widest  diversity. 

We  have  seen  above  how  much  of  the  later  Hebrew  and  of 
Chaldaism  there  is  in  Coheleth.  But  where  are  these  to  be 
found,  in  any  such  measure,  in  the  Book  of  Proverbs  ?  Nowhere. 
Here  is  the  golden  Hebrew  of  the  golden  age.  But  in  the  dark 
and  distressing  times  of  Coheleth,  the  Hebrew  idiom,  or  at  least 
the  diction  and  style,  had  greatly  changed.  A  mere  English 
reader  can,  indeed,  see  but  little  of  this  ;  for  all  the  ingredients 
are  melted  down  together  in  an  English  crucible.  But  the  very 
first  paragraph  in  Coheleth  tells  a  Hebrew  reader  that  he  has 
come  to  a  new  and  different  region.  This  is  a  thing,  however, 
which  can  only  be  felt  by  a  reader  familiar  with  the  Hebrew, 
and  therefore  one  of  which  an  adequate  description  cannot  well 
be  <riven. 


92  §  5.   WHO  WAS  THE  AUTHOR? 

"When  we  are  gravely  told  that  this  change  of  style  is  to  be 
ascribed  to  Solomon's  intercourse  with  foreign  women,  we  may 
rather  smile  than  feel  compelled  to  argue.  Would  Solomon,  in 
his  old  age,  be  likely  to  change  his  mother-tongue  ?  Had  he 
respect  enough  for  his  women  to  become  a  learner  of  foreign  lan- 
guages from  them  ?  Would  a  mere  momentary,  casual  intercourse 
with  them,  such  as  his  was,  produce  such  an  influence  on  his 
idiom  ?  And  then,  who  can  tell  whether  the  idiom  of  any  of 
these  women  resembled  that  of  Coheleth  ?  Last  of  all,  Would 
the  Spirit  of  inspiration  move  Solomon  to  write  in  the  idiom  of 
his  heathen  concubines,  who  were  unlawfully  selected?  See  Ex. 
34  :  15,  16.  In  whatever  way  we  look  at  this  matter,  it  is 
vanity  of  vanities. 

At  all  events,  the  Booh  of  Proverbs  is  opposed  to  ascribing 
Coheleth  to  Solomon.  There  brevity,  precision,  compactness, 
and  energy  of  expression,  predominate.  But,  if  we  except  the 
few  aphorisms  in  Coheleth,  and  the  precepts  here  and  there 
given,  the  mode  of  representation  is  the  reverse  of  this.  Not 
that  there  is  not  an  energy  running  through  the  whole  composi- 
tion of  the  latter,  but  that  the  repetitious  phrases  are  very  numer- 
ous, and  the  style  here  and  there  expansive  or  diluted.  What 
most  of  all  distinguishes  Coheleth  from  Proverbs  is,  that  the  for- 
mer repeats,  beyond  all  example  in  the  Scriptures,  certain 
phrases  entirely  sui  generis,  which  never  occur  at  all  in  the  Book 
of  Proverbs.  Such  are  under  the  sun,  under  heaven,  I  turned 
to  see,  I  said  in  my  heart,  and  the  like.  If  Solomon  wrote  Cohe- 
leth, how  could  such  favorite  expressions,  everywhere  introduced 
in  this  book,  have  never  appeared  at  all  in  Proverbs  ?  No  efforts 
can  remove,  or  even  diminish,  these  palpable  discrepancies  in  re- 
gard to  style  and  manner  between  the  two  books.  There  is 
more  diversity  than  exists  between  Isaiah  and  Malachi,  or 
between  the  narrations  in  Genesis  and  those  in  the  Chronicles. 
Conciliation  of  manner  is  indeed  out  of  the  question. 

Thus  far,  then,  we  have  made,  as  it  would  seem,  but  little 


§  5.  WHO  WAS  THE  AUTHOR?  93 

progress  towards  discovering  the  author  of  tlie  book.  If  our 
mode  of  reasoning  and  drawing  conclusions  be  valid,  we  have 
thus  far  only  come  to  the  decision  that  Solomon  was  not  the 
author,      lllio,  then,  was  he,  and  when  did  he  live  ? 

According  to  Hermann  Yon  der  Ilardt,  he  was  a  man  by  the 
name  of  Jesus,  the  third  son  of  the  high-priest  Jehoiadah,  who 
lived  under  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  Long.,  Xerxes  II.,  and  Darius 
Nothus  (464 — 404  b.  c).  If  we  ask  for  proof  of  this,  none  is 
or  can  be  produced.  Proof  was  not  necessary  to  Von  der  Ilardt, 
and  he  deals  very  little  in  it.  Kaiser  makes  Zerubbabel,  famous 
in  the  annals  of  the  exiled  and  returning  Jews,  the  author ;  and 
even  Grotius  intimates  that  'the  collection  of  the  miscellanies  [?] 
in  the  book  was  made  by  the  scribes,  under  his  order ;'  —  all, 
again,  without  any  proof. 

As  the  real  author  has  told  us,  at  the  close,  that  he  was  a  d:fi , 
(i.  e.,  in  modern  Arabic,  a  Hakim,  or  Ulema),  a  fxdyos,  12:9,  who 
collected  and  compared,  and  arranged  B^lDB ,  and  has  spoken  of 
himself  only  by  an  official  designation,  viz.,  Coheleth,  we  find 
nothing  in  the  book  that  leads  to  the  individual  and  proper  name 
of  the  writer.  We  may  give  up,  then,  our  pursuit  after  this,  and 
must  try  to  content  ourselves,  in  this  particular  case,  with  the 
simple  verdict  of  ignoramus. 

The  times  in  which  the  author  lived  are  the  only  thing  now  left 
by  which  we  may  find  some  traces  of  him.  The  nature  of  these 
has  been  amply  described  above.  They  were  times  of  kingly 
government ;  of  great  oppression  by  all  classes  of  the  magistracy  ; 
of  luxury,  extravagance,  idleness,  and  debauchery  among  the 
upper  classes  ;  of  persecution  in  respect  to  the  righteous,  and  of 
promotion  and  prosperity  in  regard  to  the  wicked  ;  times  in  which 
the  poor  and  the  just  were  reduced  to  despair,  so  that  life  became 
a  burden ;  times  in  which  a  whisper  against  the  tyrants  of  the 
land  was  followed  by  severe  penalties  :  and,  in  a  word,  days  of 
darkness,  even  of  thick  and  impenetrable  gloom,  so  that  to  go  to 
the  house  of  mourning  was  preferable  to  attendance  on  a  feast, 


04  §  5.  WHO  WAS  THE  AUTHOR? 

because  of  the  feeling  that  the  dead  had  escaped  from  the  mise- 
ries of  the  living.  So  much  lies  on  the  face  of  the  book,  and  is 
interwoven  with  its  very  texture.  But  when  was  there  such 
times  in  Judea?  We  might  be  inclined  to  answer:  'Under  Ma- 
nasseh,  who  reigned  fifty-five  years,  who  became  a  heathen,  and 
filled  Jerusalem  with  innocent  blood,  2  K.  xxi.  All  the  evils 
just  mentioned  doubtless  may  have  existed  under  him.'  —  But 
still  it  would  be  utterly  unaccountable  that  not  a  word  should  be 
said  about  idolatry,  or  concerning  martyrdom.  Possibly,  however, 
such  a  passage  as  7:15  might  occupy  the  ground  of  the  latter. 
But,  inasmuch  as  no  reference  is  made  to  the  interruption  of  Le- 
vitical  rites  and  temple-worship,  but,  on  the  contrary,  they  are 
spoken  of  as  being  an  ordinary  thing  (4 :  17  seq.),  it  is  difficult 
to  suppose  the  writer  (whose  object  it  is  to  bring  together  the 
various  vanities  of  human  life  as  then  exhibited)  could  have 
passed  through  his  whole  work  without  making  any  complaint 
of  such  things.  The  moderated  tone  in  which  the  author  speaks 
of  ritual  ivorsltip,  seems  to  indicate  a  period  in  which  the  relig- 
ious Jews  had  fallen  off  from  the  earlier  and  ardent  attachment 
to  rites  and  sacrifices.  The  spirit  of  the  day,  when  Malachi 
wrote  his  book,  will  help  us  to  understand  this  ;  for,  so  far  had  it 
gone  from  high  regard  to  the  externals  of  worship,  that  the 
prophet  felt  moved  to  rebuke  the  Jews  for  "robbing  God  of  his 
offerings,"  Mai.  3  : 8  seq.  Such  is  the  natural  effect  of  a  seventy 
years'  exile,  when  ritual  and  temple  worship  was  suspended. 
Still,  so  long  as  the  Mosaic  Law  was  acknowledged  as  the  consti- 
tution of  the  state,  something  must  be  done  in  this  way,  and  it 
should  be  done  with  decorum  ;  and  Malachi  finds  it  to  be  a  matter 
of  reproof  that  the  returned  Jews  neglected  their  duty  in  this 
respect.  His  design,  however,  is  consistent  with  such  a  spirit  as 
Coheleth  shows ;  for  the  latter  calls  neither  offerings  nor  vows,  as 
such,  in  question,  but  cautions  against  a  slight,  superficial,  merely 
external,  and  hypocritical  performance  of  such  duties.  He  has, 
evidently,  an  enlightened  view  of  the  spirituality  necessary  to  an 


§  5.  WHO   WAS  THE  AUTHOR?  95 

acceptable  performance  of  them.  But  this,  of  itself,  will  not 
decide  for  us  the  question,  When  did  he  live  and  write  ?  For 
some  Jews  in  every  age,  as  we  may  well  suppose,  cherished 
similar  sentiments. 

But  if  we  go  down  lower  than  the  time  of  Manasseh,  we  find, 
indeed,  tyrannical  kings,  and  a  distracted  state  of  the  common- 
wealth ;  but  still  we  find  these  kings,  in  all  probability,  in  the 
practice  of  heathen  and  idolatrous  rites,  for  it  is  said  of  both 
Jehoiakim  and  Zedekiah,  that  "  they  did  evil  in  the  sight  of  the 
Lord,"  which  more  usually  designates  the  practice  of  idolatry, 
as  employed  in  the  Book  of  Kings.  After  this  there  was  no  in- 
digenous king  in  Judea  until  the  time  of  the  Hasmonean  family, 
or  the  age  of  Judas  Maccabaeus.  If  the  book  was  written  after 
the  exile,  it  must  have  been  under  the  reign  of  the  Persian  kings, 
and  before  the  Greek  kings  of  Egypt  or  of  Syria  had  dominion 
over  Palestine.  Oppression  under  these  last-named  kings  did 
not  take  place  seriously  until  about  the  time  when  Antiochus 
Epiphanes  came  on  the  stage  of  action,  i.  e.,  175  b.  c.  Oppres- 
sion under  the  Persian  kings  might  have  happened,  and  did  some- 
times happen  ;  see  Ezra  3  :  5  ;  4  : 1 — 24.  Neh.  6  :  5 — 19,  esj^e- 
cially  Neh.  9  :  37.  After  Ezra  came  to  Palestine  (about  457  b.  a), 
the  Jews  were  generally,  but  not  always  (see  texts  just  cited), 
on  a  good  footing  with  the  Persian  kings,  so  far  as  the  sacred 
history  carries  us,  i.  e.,  down  to  some  434  b.  c.  It  would,  on  the 
whole,  seem  most  probable  that  between  the  first  return  of  the 
Jews  from  exile  (535  b.  a),  down  to  the  time  of  Ezra  (about  80 
years  afterward),  is  the  period  most  likely  to  exhibit  the  phenom- 
ena which  we  have  brought  to  view  above.  The  neighbors  of  the 
Jews  gave  them  much  trouble,  often  misrepresented  them  to  the 
kings  of  Persia,  and  occasioned  them  many  grievances.  The 
governors  of  Judea  were  probably  corrupt  men,  under  those 
Persian  kings  who  troubled  the  Jews  ;  and  a  state  of  things 
Buch  as  the  book  before  us  brings  to  view  might  easily  have 
existed  through  their   management.      Persia,  moreover,  never 


96  §5.   WHO   WAS  THE  AUTHOR? 

worshipped  idols.     And  this  may  be  the  reason  why  Coheleth 
never  speaks  of  idolatry  as  the  vice  of  either  kings  or  nobles. 

The  only  difficulty  in  the  case  seems  to  be,  that  the  king 
appears  to  be  spoken  of  as  if  he  were  a  proper  Jewish  king, 
belonging  to  the  country.  But  still  the  lines  are  not  drawn 
strictly  here.  The  fact  that  the  province  {ttX+Wn  with  the 
article)  is  spoken  of  in  5  : 7,  favors  the  period  of  Persian  domi- 
nation at  the  time  when  the  book  was  written ;  for  Judea  was 
plainly  a  province  of  the  Persian  empire.  The  Jews  belonged 
to  Cyrus,  by  virtue  of  his  conquest  of  Babylonia,  where  they 
then  lived.  They  were  afterwards  treated  as  a  province  by  the 
Persian  kings,  as  the  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  abundantly 
testify.  The  difficulty  in  carrying  out  a  scheme  of  proof,  lies  in 
the  want"  of  more  minute  historical  documents  respecting  the 
period  in  question.  We  have  only  a  short  passage  in  Ezra 
which  specially  refers  to  this  period,  and  this  is  occupied  mainly 
with  civil  troubles  and  embarrassments.  We  can  argue,  there- 
fore, only  from  analogy  drawn  from  other  periods.  And  this 
will  easily  serve  to  convince  us  that  matters  may  have  then  been 
in  the  dismal  state  which  Coheleth  so  vividly  describes.  The 
assertion  by  some  critics,  that  Ecc.  was  written  at  the  IMacca- 
baean  period,  is  altogether  destitute  of  probability.  It  must 
needs  have  taken  its  hue  from  those  bitter  and  bloody  times,  and 
have  administered  severe  rebuke  to  the  blood-thirsty  Syrian 
tyrant  who  was  desolating  the  country  by  his  persecution  and 
his  massacres.  Besides,  it  is  made  quite  clear  by  Josephns 
(Cont.  Ap.  i.  8)  that  no  book  was  introduced  into  the  Jewish 
Canon  after  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes,  the  son  of  Xerxes  I.  Co- 
heleth, therefore,  could  not  have  been  written  so  late. 

era]  critics  speak  of  the  lateness  of  the  period  as  neces- 
sarily connected  with  the  knowledge  of  Grecian  philosophy, 
which,  as  they  think,  the  book  evinces.  But  Knobel  himself 
confesses  (mid  so  Hitzig)  that  there  is  not  a  tint  of  Greek 
philosophy  in  the  whole  book  ;  and  nothing  can  be  plainer  than 


§  5.   WHO  WAS  THE  AUTHOR?  97 

this.  We  are  then  under  no  necessity  of  placing  the  composition 
of  the  book  at  a  period  subsequent  to  the  conquest  of  Alexander 
the  Great,  and  the  introduction  of  Greek  learning  into  the  East. 
The  book  is  through  and  through  of  Hebrew  spirit,  and  is  indeed 
nothing  but  Hebrew.  But  it  is  not  the  work  of  a  stickler  for 
rites  and  offerings  ;  for  it  exhibits  enlightened  and  spiritual  views 
in  regard  to  this  subject. 

I  have  given  the  sum  of  what  can  be  alleged,  both  in  favor  of 
a  later  period  of  writing,  and  against  the  personal  authorship  of 
Solomon.  But  whoever  the  writer  was,  he  unquestionably  intro- 
duces Solomon  into  his  book,  as  speaking  man}'  things  there  sug- 
gested. Chap,  ii.,  in  particular,  comes  under  this  category ;  and 
it  can  hardly  be  made  to  apply  to  any  other  Jewish  king  than 
Solomon.  Not  unfrequently,  however,  the  writer  speaks  of 
kings  as  a  third  person  would  speak  who  was  a  mere  spectator 
of  their  demeanor,  and  not  himself  the  subject  of  what  is  said. 
We  have  seen  how  strangely  many  passages  concerning  rulers 
and  oppression  would  sound  in  the  mouth  of  Solomon  himself. 
It  is  against  all  critcal  probability,  therefore,  that  Solomon  was 
the  author.  But  the  writer  has  shown  us  no  other  metes  and 
bounds  to  separate  what  he  says  himself  from  what  Solomon  is 
represented  as  saying,  excepting  what  the  matter  spoken  supplies. 
Nor  is  it  important  that  he  should  do  this;  for  it  is  he  who 
really  speaks  in  both  cases,  but  in  one  of  them  he  speaks  through 
the  medium  of  a  supposed  and  apparently  different  person.  He 
gives  Solomon's  experience ;  and,  in  giving  it,  he  figuratively 
introduces  Solomon  as  himself  relating  it.  This  belongs  merely 
to  the  form,  and  not  to  the  substance  of  the  book.  No  one  can 
justly  take  offence  at  this.  Why  may  not  the  author  do  so,  as 
well  as  Solomon  could  introduce  Wisdom  as  speaking  in  her 
own  person  ?  Prov.  viii.  The  apocryphal  book,  the  Wisdom  of 
Solomon,  doubtless  in  imitation  of  Coheleth's  example,  introduces 
Solomon  as  speaking  throughout ;  see  chap.  7:1,  seq.  In  other 
words,  wisdom  is  personified  in  Solomon.     And  although  we  can- 

9 


98  4  5.   WHO   WAS  THE  AUTHOR? 

not,  with  Ewald  and  Ilitzig,  admit  such  a  personification  here, 
(see  p.  41,  above),  yet  the  general  principle,  in  respect  to  manner, 
is  the  same  in  Coheleth  as  in  the  other  books  just  named.  Id 
Proverbs,  Wisdom  itself  is  personified  simply ;  in  the  Book  of 
Wisdom,  Solomon  is  her  representative  and  personification ; 
while  in  Coheleth,  Solomon  is  introduced,  not  as  wisdom,  but  as 
relating  his  own  experience  in  a  variety  of  things,  and  among 
these,  in  his  search  after  wisdom.  The  writer  has  chosen  to  in- 
troduce him  as  saying  this  and  that,  because  Solomon  was  spe- 
cially qualified  to  say  it. 

I  cannot  see,  then,  any  need  of  introducing,  as  Augusti  does, 
Solomon's  (/host  as  the  speaker.  On  this  I  have  already  made 
remarks  in  the  preceding  pages.  The  Hebrews  did  not  deal  in 
ghosts,  much  less  set  them  to  carry  on  dialogues  with  the  living. 
There  is  no  intimation  of  anything  of  this  nature  in  the  book 
itself.     It  is  not  a  part  of  Hebrew  machinery. 

There  are  several  reasons  why  the  author  should  introduce 
Solomon  so  often  as  speaker  in  his  book.  (1)  As  the  great 
theme  of  the  book  is  the  vanity  of  all  earthly  things,  even  in  their 
best  estate,  no  person  could  be  introduced  whose  experience  in 
regard  to  all  that  could  adorn  life  and  render  it  happy  was  so 
signally  marked  as  that  of  Solomon.  If  the  world  could  not 
make  him  happy,  then  it  could  promise  happiness  to  no  one  else. 
Chap.  ii.  gives  a  vivid  description  of  Solomon's  experience,  and 
pronounces  the  general  sentence  upon  it.  (2)  No  topic  is  so  fre- 
quently introduced  into  the  book  as  that  of  wisdom.  Solomon's 
experience  in  respect  to  this  was  beyond  that  of  any  other  man. 
Hence  the  appropriateness  of  introducing  him  to  speak  concern- 
ing it.  Whoever  will  attentively  peruse  1  K.  2  :  G  ;  3  :  12,  28 ; 
4  :  29— 3 1 ;  1 1  :  41  ;  10:23,  24,  will  see  the  ground  of  Solomon's 
high  and  lasting  reputation  for  wisdom.  The  son  of  Sirach, 
17  :  1  1 — 19,  has  shown  how  this  matter  stood  in  his  time;  and 
Matt.  12  :  42,  Luke  11  :  31,  advert  to  the  same  matter  as  it  stood 
during  the  first  century  of  the  Christian  era. 


§  5.   GENERAL  HISTORY  OF  THE  BOOK.  99 

These  considerations  are  sufficient  to  vindicate  the  author  of 
Coheleth  for  introducing  another  personage  than  himself,  viz., 
Solomon.  And  all  that  has  been  said  above,  as  it  seems  to  me, 
is  sufficient  to  show  that  the  person  introduced  is  merely  an 
agent  in  the  wr iter's  hands. and  not  one  who  simply  acts  for  him- 
self. But  be  this  as  it  may,  it  will  alter  neither  the  design  nor 
the  general  meaning  of  the  book  before  us.  It  is  not  a  question 
de  re  ipsa,  but  only  one  de  modo  in  quo. 

§  6.    Credit  and  general  History  of  the  Booh. 

It  cannot  seem  strange,  to  any  reflecting  mind,  that  a  book 
replete  with  so  many  things,  which  at  first  view  seem  to  be  para- 
doxical, or  skeptical,  or  in  opposition  to  sound  morals,  should 
have  excited  in  some  minds  suspicions  of  its  orthodoxy  and 
divine  authority.  If  it  be  read,  as  most  readers  in  ancient  times 
seem  to  have  read  it,  as  containing  nothing  but  the  sentiments  of 
Solomon  himself,  it  is  indeed  a  task  more  difficult  than  that  which 
Oedipus  had  to  perform  in  solving  the  riddle  of  the  Sphinx,  to 
make  out  such  a  solution  of  some  parts  of  the  book  as  will  cause 
them  to  speak  orthodoxy. 

The  author  of  the  Book  of  Wisdom  seems  to  have  felt  the 
difficulties  presented  by  Ecclesiastes.  In  2  : 1 — 9  he  has  exhib- 
ited what  looks  like  a  series  of  quotations  and  abridged  views  of 
parts  of  Coheleth ;  and  this  series  he  prefaces  by  saying :  "  They 
say  to  themselves  who  speak  not  rightly;"  after  which  follow 
the  apparent  citations  just  referred  to.  When  these  are  ended 
he  makes  a  few  additions  of  the  like  tenor,  and  then  winds  up 
willi  saying:  "Thus  they  reason,  and  are  deceived;  their  evil 
disposition  has  blinded  them,  and  they  know  not  the  mysteries 
of  God,  neither  do  they  hope  for  reward  of  holiness,  nor  regard 
the  reward  of  spotless  souls  ;  "  Wisd.  1  :  21,  22.  But  to  under- 
stand this  matter  fully,  the  reader  must  compare  the  following 
passages : 


100  $  6.  GENERAL  HISTORY  OF  THE  BOOK. 

Wisdom,  Chap.  ii. 

(v.  1)  comp.  Ecc.  2  :  23,  3  ;  5:17;  6:12;  8:8;  3  :  22. 

(2)  "       9  :  11 ;  3  :  2  ;  9  :  4,  5,  6,  comp.  3  :  18—21. 

(3)  "      3  :  20  ;  12  :  7. 

(4)  "      1:11;  2:16;  9:5,  comp.  4:16. 

(5)  "       6:12;  11:8;  9:10;  12:5;  3:22. 

(6)  "      3:12;  6:9;  11 :  9,  comp.  3  :  22  ;  5  :  17  ;  9:7— 

9;  11:8. 

(7)  "      9:8. 

(8)  "      id. 

(9)  "      3:22;  5:17, 18;  8:15;  9:9. 

At  first  view,  it  would  seem  as  if  there  could  not  be  much 
doubt  whether  the  book  of  Coheleth  is  cited  in  Wisdom.  From 
what  the  writer  says,  immediately  before  and  after  the  apparent 
citations,  it  is  plain  that  he  sets  himself  in  array  against  the 
sentiments  contained  in  them.  But,  even  supposing  them  to  be 
actual  citations,  a  question  still  would  arise  here,  viz.,  Whether 
he  is  opposing  Coheleth,  or  the  wrong  use  of  Coheleth  ?  Perhaps 
we  cannot  answer  this  question  with  entire  certainty.  But  the 
high  respect  which  the  author  of  Wisdom  shows  for  the  law  of 
the  Lord,  his  precepts,  and  the  religious  fear  of  him,  indicates  a 
great  regard  for  religion,  and  of  course  for  the  Scriptures  ;  and 
beyond  all  doubt  Coheleth  was  attached  to  the  Hebrew  Scriptures 
long  before  his  time.  That  he  should  array  himself  against  the 
book  itself,  then,  is  very  improbable ;  and  at  all  events,  it  is 
without  any  parallel  in  any  other  Jewish  apocryphal  writer. 
The  Jewish  tone  of  those  days  is  very  far  from  anything  which 
would  look  like  abating  from  the  high  claims  of  the  sacred  books. 
For  these  reasons,  I  must  believe  that  the  author  of  Wisdom,  if 
he  has  quoted  Ecc.,  is  describing  the  mal-practice  of  those  who 
deduced  such  doctrines  as  he  mentions  from  the  book  in  question, 
instead  of  reading  and  interpreting  it  according  to  its  true  design 


§  G.  GENERAL  HISTORY  OE  THE  BOOK.  101 

find  intention.  In  speaking  thus,  the  implication  is  that  he  un- 
derstood the  objectionable  passages  as  coming  from  an  objector. 
Others,  supposing  them  to  exhibit  Solomon's  true  views,  appealed 
to  them  as  good  authority  for  skepticism  and  sensuality ;  and 
these  he  designs  to  reprove.  But  as  we  do  not  know  the  degree 
of  light  which  the  writer  of  the  Book  of  Wisdom  had  respecting 
the  nature  of  Coheleth,  we  cannot  decide  with  entire  certainty 
whether  he  speaks  in  opposition  to  the  book  or  to  the  abuse  of  it. 
The  latter  is,  at  all  events,  by  far  the  most  probable  supposition 
in  respect  to  a  high-minded  and  orthodox  Jew. 

A  minute  inspection,  however,  and  a  comparison  of  the  pas- 
sages referred  to  above,  will,  after  all,  suggest  doubts  whether  the 
author  of  Wisdom  meant  to  quote  Coheleth.  There  are  several 
turns  of  expression  which  seem  to  come  from  Ecc,  for  they 
spontaneously  remind  the  reader  of  expressions  in  that  book. 
But  there  are  others  which  are  quite  unlike  to  Ecc. ;  and  these 
are  sufficiently  numerous  to  raise  some  doubt.  Hitzig  rejects 
the  idea;  Knobel  strives  to  vindicate  it  at  length,  Einl.  §  10. 
What  the  latter  quotes  as  citations  is  comprised  in  2  : 2 — 9,  as 
exhibited  above.  Then  follow  1 1  vs.  of  his  own  language  ;  and 
it  is  only  in  vs.  21,  22,  that  we  find  a  condemning  sentence 
passed.  Now,  if  vs.  1 — 9  contained  what  he  aimed  to  oppose  and 
condemn,  we  should  expect  the  condemning  sentence  to  be  pro- 
duced in  v.  10,  instead  of  v.  21.  As  the  text  now  stands,  it  looks 
as  if  the  author  regarded  the  whole  of  2  : 1 — 22  as  the  expres- 
sion of  his  own  language,  although  it  hardly  admits  of  a  doubt 
that  his  expressions  were  modified  by  the  reading  of  Ecclesiastes. 
The  fact  that  no  other  Heb.  writer  of  that  day,  and  long  after- 
wards, ever  opposes  any  part  of  the  O.  Test.,  makes  against  the 
views  of  Knobel,  and  in  favor  of  the  sentiment  of  Hitzig. 

The  Talmud  seems  to  intimate  that  some  Jewish  teachers  were 
at  that  time  seeking  to  show  that  Ecc.  was  a  book  which  did  not 
spring  from  divine  inspiration.  In  Tract.  Shabb.  fol.  30,  col.  2, 
it  is  said:  "The  learned  rthe  bTOSH]  sought  to  lay  aside  (tissV 

9* 


102       4  6.  GENERAL    HISTORY    OF    THE  BOOK. 

lit.  to  hide)  the  book  Coheleth,  because  the  declarations  thereof 
contradict  each  other."  In  Pesich.  Rab.  fol.  33,  col.  1,  in  Yay- 
yiqra  Rabba,  fol.  161,  col.  2,  and  in  Midr.  Kohel.  fol.  311,  col.  1, 
it  is  said :  "  The  learned  sought  to  lay  aside  the  book  Coheleth, 
because  they  found  therein  words  leaning  to  the  side  of  the  here- 
tics." In  Midr.  Kohel.  fol.  114,  col.  1,  a  different  reason  is 
given,  viz. :  "  Because  all  the  wisdom  of  Solomon  consists  at 
last  in  this :  Rejoice,  O  young  man,  in  thy  youth,  etc. ;  which  is 
at  variance  with  Num.  15  :  39."  Jerome  relates  like  things  of 
the  Hebrews  of  his  day.  According  to  him  they  say :  "  Among 
other  writings  of  Solomon,  which  have  become  antiquated,  and 
the  memory  of  them  lost,  this  book  deserves  to  be  obliterated, 
because  it  asserts  that  all  the  creatures  of  God  are  vain,  and  re- 
gards them  as  nothing,  and  it  gives  the  preference  to  eating  and 
drinking,  and  other  transitory  pleasures,"  Comra.  in  Ecc.  2  :  13. 
He  himself  pronounces  the  book  to  be  one  of  authority,  and 
worthy  to  be  numbered  with  the  divine  books,  because  it  ends 
with  the  conclusion  that  "  We  should  fear  God,  and  keep  his 
commandments,"  ib.  In  Midr.  Kohel.  and  Tract.  Shabb.,  as 
above  cited,  the  writers  subjoin  to  what  is  there  quoted :  "  And 
why  did  they  not  lay  it  aside  ?  Because  at  the  beginning  are 
words  of  the  law,  and  at  the  end  are  words  of  the  law."  Not  a 
bad  reason,  so  far  as  it  goes ;  but  it  cannot  go  far,  for  a  book 
might  have  words  of  the  Law  at  the  beginning  and  end,  without 
having  any  claim  to  be  a  divine  book. 

Spinoza  (Tract,  theol.  pol.,  p.  15,  27)  says  of  Solomon,  that 
"  he  excelled  others  in  wisdom,  but  not  in  the  prophetic  gift ; " 
and  he  blames  him,  because  he  has  taught  that  "  everything  is 
vain." 

All  this  amounts  indeed  to  very  little.  We  know  from  Sirach, 
Philo,  Josephus,  and  the  early  Christian  writers,  that  Coheleth 
belonged  to  the  Jewish  Scriptures  in  their  times,  i.  e.,  both  before 
and  after  the  birth  of  Christ.  It  is  critically  certain  that  it  was 
included  in  the  Scriptures  sanctioned  as  divine  by  Christ  and  the 


§6.  GENERAL    HISTORY    OF    THE    BOOK.       103 

apostles.  But  as  I  have  fully  discussed  this  subject  in  my  little 
work  on  the  Canon  of  the  O.  Test.,  I  need  not  repeat  the  discus- 
sion here. 

It  is  true,  indeed,  that  none  of  the  N.  Test,  writers  have 
quoted  it ;  but  equally  true  as  to  several  other  books  whose  can- 
onicity  cannot  be  questioned.  The  argumentum  a  silentio,  we 
may  again  say,  is  of  no  value  here.  '  They  did  not  cite  it,  be- 
cause they  did  not  need  to  cite  it  for  their  purpose,'  —  is  a  suf- 
ficient answer. 

In  like  manner  Christians  of  the  earliest  ages  do  not  cite  it, 
and  for  a  like  reason.  At  a  later  period,  Gregory  Nyss.,  Jerome, 
Olympiodorus,  and  Oecumenius,  wrote  Commentaries  on  Cohe- 
leth.  Philastrius  of  Brescia  (t387),  and  Theodore  of  Mopsues- 
tia  (f  429),  regarded  it  as  savoring  of  Epicureanism,  and  as  un- 
inspired. But  the  Council  of  Constantinople  (a.  d.  553),  at 
which  165  bishops  were  present,  anathematized  this  position. 
Abul  Pharagius,  the  Jacobite  Maffrian  (11286),  maintained  that 
the  book  agrees  with  Empedocles,  viz.,  that  it  declares  there  is 
no  future  state  of  existence. 

The  book  remained  without  being  seriously  assailed,  after  the 
decision  at  Constantinople,  until  a  period  subsequent  to  the  Ref- 
ormation. The  older  commentators  among  the  Reformers  main- 
tained the  position,  that  it  was  written  by  Solomon,  and  they 
regarded  all  its  words  as  indicative  of  his  opinions,  and  did  the 
best  they  could  to  reconcile  them  with  each  other,  and  with  the 
rest  of  the  Scriptures.  If  the  subject  were  not  of  so  grave  a 
nature,  many  of  their  efforts  at  interpretation  would  provoke  the 
smile  of  the  interpreter  at  the  present  day.  It  is,  indeed,  a  diffi- 
cult task  to  make  such  passages  as  4  :  19 — 21  speak  orthodoxy. 

Le  Clerc  threw  out  hints,  calling  in  question  the  inspiration 
and  authority  of  the  book.  He  was  answered  by  Witsius,  Carp- 
zov,  and  others.  On  the  same  side  with  the  latter  were  S. 
Sclimidt,  Geier,  Rambach,  and  many  others.  In  recent  times 
the  book  has  undergone  every  kind  of  accusation  and  contumely. 


104       §  G.  GENERAL    HISTORY    OF    THE    BOOK. 

Eichhorn,  and  even  Jalin  and  Stiiudlin,  Augusti,  De  Wette,  and 
Others,  accuse  it  now  of  immorality,  of  skepticism,  and  of  Epicu- 
reanism, then  of  gloomy  views,  of  contradictions,  and  the  like. 
Knobel  accuses  it  of  fatalism  and  skepticism,  as  does  Hitzig  also  ; 
but  both  allow  that  the  book  makes  mention  of  many  things 
which  are  not  to  be  taken  as  the  settled  opinions  of  the  author. 
Yet  even  these  two  last-named  critics  do  not  appear  to  have 
sufficiently  considered  the  whole  plan  and  modus  of  the  book,  as 
to  its  presenting  doubts  and  difficulties,  and  then  sooner  or  later 
solving  them.  If  the  author  is  allowed  to  be  a  man  of  acute  and 
discerning  mind  (and  most  will  allow  this),  then  the  supposition 
that  all  parts  of  the  book,  even  those  which  contradict  each  other, 
are  to  be  regarded  as  each  giving  alike  the  author's  own  views,  is 
little  short  of  an  absurdity.  No  man  of  sense  would  contradict 
himself  so  often,  within  such  narrow  limits. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  give  the  recent  history  of  the  views 
respecting  Coheleth,  which  have  been  entertained  by  many  crit- 
ics ;  since  their  opinions  have  been  sufficiently  stated  in  the  pre- 
ceding pages.  One  thing  undoubtedly  is  true,  viz.,  that  many 
Christians,  and  even  many  preachers  of  the  gospel,  seldom  re- 
sort to  this  book  for  instruction,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  fa- 
vorite apothegms  and  sententious  declarations.  There  are  things 
in  the  book  which  seem  to  them  plain;  and  these  they  quote  with 
the  more  pleasure,  because  they  are  so  pointed  and  full  of  mean- 
ing. But  in  many  parts  of  the  book  they  fail  entirely  in  dis- 
covering any  thread  of  discourse,  or  the  specific  object  which  the 
writer  has  in  view.  The  consequence  is,  that  they  look  on  the 
book  much  as  they  do  on  the  Book  of  Proverbs.  I  mean  that 
they  regard  it  as  having  about  as  little  of  unity  and  connection 
as  the  latter  book.  When  the  author  speaks  of  'dead  flies  as 
causing  the  ointment  of  the  apothecary  to  become  offensive  in 
smell ;'  orwhen  he  speaks  of 'a  dulled  tool  which  must  be  swung 
the  harder  in  order  to  make  it  cut;'  they  wonder  what  bearing 
this  can  have  on  the  subject  of  religion,  or  even  on  the  general 


§  7.  SEPTUAGINT    VERSION.  105 

theme  of  worldly  vanity.  And  certainly  this  perplexity  is  not 
to  be  wondered  at,  considering  the  nature,  plan,  and  course  of 
thought  in  the  book.  It  requires  long  and  diligent  study  to  dis- 
cover all  its  bearings,  after  they  have  so  long  been  overlooked, 
and  nearly  the  whole  of  commentary  has  betaken  itself  to  mere 
moralizing  on  some  of  the  leading  apothegms.  A  folio  of  preach- 
ment on  Ecc.  is  rather  a  formidable  affair  to  readers  who  have 
but  little  time  at  command.  What  they  really  want,  is  to  get  at 
the  thoughts  of  the  ivriter,  and  not  merely  to  know  what  others 
have  thought  and  said  on  certain  ethical  topics  presented  by  him. 
Hence  not  a  few  of  the  folios  which  have  been  written,  disap- 
point their  hopes.  More  than  most  readers  want,  in  respect  to 
the  views  and  reasonings  of  commentators,  they  can  easily  find ; 
but  of  the  difficulties  in  the  text  itself,  whether  of  language  or 
sentiment,  they  are  still  obliged  to  forego  the  solution. 

Could  the  book  be  placed  in  its  true  light  before  the  public 
mind,  it  would  aid  very  much  in  restoring  to  it  the  usefulness 
which  it  is  adapted  to  subserve.  At  all  events,  many  of  the  dif- 
ficulties would  be  removed  which  now  embarrass  and  hedge  up 
the  way  of  the  inquirer,  and  especially  of  the  common  reader. 
The  writer  of  the  following  commentary  would  fain  indulge  the 
hope,  that  more  satisfactory  views  of  the  book  may  be  disclosed 
by  the  efforts  which  he  has  made  to  explain  it.  At  least  the 
student  of  Hebrew  has  a  claim  to  expect  that  something  more 
may  be  done  to  aid  him  than  will  be  found  in  the  great  mass  of 
even  the  recent  commentators. 

§  7.  Ancient  Versions  of  Coheleth. 

(I.)  The  Septuagint.  The  most  ancient  version  of  the 
whole  Hebrew  Scriptures,  of  which  we  have  any  knowledge,  is 
that  of  the  Septuagint.  That  this  work,  as  a  whole,  was  made 
by  different  hands,  is  quite  evident,  from  the  variety  of  diction 
and  style  of  translating  in  different   books.     Aristobulus  says, 


106  §   7.   SEPTUAGIXT    VERSION. 

that  the  whole  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  were  translated  during 
the  reign  of  Ptolemy  Lagi  and  Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  his  bob 
(323—246  b.  c.) ;  quoted  in  De  Wette,  Einleit.  §  40,  n.  e.  But 
whether  for  the  purposes  of  augmenting  the  far-famed  Alexan- 
drian Library,  or  to  meet  the  religious  wants  of  the  Jews,  is  a 
question  not  entirely  settled.  I  see  no  difficulty  in  combining 
both  reasons.  The  two  first  Ptolemies  treated  the  Jews  with 
great  favor,  and  drew  multitudes  of  them  to  Alexandria.  They 
might  have  procured  the  Sept.  version  to  be  made,  as  a  designed 
favor  towards  them. 

Yery  diverse  is  the  genius  of  translation  in  different  books,  as 
I  have  intimated  above.  But  this  diversity  could  as  well  be 
exhibited  during  the  seventy-seven  years  of  the  reign  of  the  two 
Ptolemies,  as  in  a  longer  and  later  period.  If  any  one  would 
obtain  full  conviction  of  the  discrepancies  of  the  Greek,  in 
various  books  of  the  Sept.,  let  him  read  Job  and  Proverbs,  and 
then  come  to  the  reading  of  Coheleth.  Job  and  Prov.,  being 
translated  by  a  reader  of  the  classics,  afford  evidence  that  the 
author  strove  to  exhibit  classical  Greek ;  especially  in  the  Prov. 
does  he  do  this,  even  at  the  expense,  not  unfrequently,  of  the 
meaning  of  the  Hebrew.  By  his  transpositions,  his  large  addi- 
tions, and  his  subtractions  also,  he  has  made  the  book  quite 
another  thing  than  the  original.  But  in  Ecc,  there  is  next  to 
nothing  of  all  this  ;  nor  is  there  any  aim  at  classic  style.  As  a 
whole,  the  version  must  be  pronounced  faithful,  and  in  this  re- 
spect, successful.  There  is  a  literality  of  translating,  which 
sometimes  surprises,  and  sometimes  (I  had  almost  said)  amuses 
us.  For  example,  the  translation  not  unfrequently  renders  the 
-rat,  which  murks  the  Ace.  in  Heb.,  by  crvv  in  Greek,  even  when 
the  noun  connected  with  "W*  is  put  in  the  Ace;  e.  g.,  I  hated, 
t-^n-rM;,  is  translated  by  i/xLa^aa  avv  tyjv  £oj>Ji/,  2  :  17;  and 
bo  in  3  :  17  l,i>.;  4:3;  7  :  30 ;  8:8,  15,  17;  9:  15;  11:7; 
12  :  '.).  Yet  in  other  cases,  the  writer  appears  plainly  to  under- 
stand the  true  meaning  of  "W*.  as  marking  the  Ace.  and  beimr 


§  7.  SETTUAGINT    VEliSION.  107 

equivalent  to  a  demonstrative.  But  one  would  come  to  erroneous 
conclusions  respecting  the  translator's  Greek,  should  he  judge 
of  it  by  such  a  barbarism.  The  simple  truth  is,  that,  in  his  rigid 
effort  to  be  as  literal  as  possible,  he  has  admitted  avv  as  a  trans- 
lation of  _nx ,  because  this  word  not  unfrequently  means  with  — 
avv.  He  aimed  to  give  what  he  thought  to  be  the  very  shape 
of  the  Hebrew,  even  at  the  expense  of  grammatical  propriety  in 
Greek. 

Servile  imitations  of  the  Hebrew  double  pronoun,  i.  e.,  ^s: 
with  a  subsequent  pronoun,  may  be  seen  in  4  :  9,  oh  iarlv  awois 
ixia$6s.  So  in  6  :  2.  But  this  is  less  frequent  here  than  in  some 
other  books.  In  other  cases,  there  is  a  servile  literality  in  def- 
erence to  etymology,  without  due  regard  to  usage  and  proper 
sense  ;  e.  g.,  T"\'z^  hv_ ,  on  account  of,  Sept.  7repi  Xakta^  making 
ttW  =  "iM,  3  :  18  ;  7  :  15.  So  in  8  :  9,  n'lxa,  [rule]  over  man, 
Sept.  eV  d^pco7rw,  iv  being  inapposite  here,  but  still  it  gives  the 
literal  sense  of  s.  So  6  :  G,  dttMMB,  twiee^  Sept.  #ca$o§ov?,  vices, 
i.  e.,  turns  or  returns,  which,  although  singular  Greek  here,  still 
does  not  spoil  the  sense  ;  10  :  17,  r\^l$Z,on  account  of  strength, 
Sept.  Zv  Swa/xci,  which  gives  an  erroneous  sense  in  this  place, 
although  literal.  Instances  not  unfrequently  occur,  where  what 
is  often  repeated  or  habitually  done,  is,  according  to  the  genius  bf 
the  Heb.  verb,  expressed  by  the  Greek  Future,  instead  of  the 
Present.  E.  g.,  10  :  6,  tattfr,  ***j  Sept.  KaSrpovTai,  Fut.,  while  it 
should  be  KaJhpnai.     So  11  :  5  ;  10  :  12  ;  10  :  4,  al. 

In  not  a  few  cases,  the  Heb.  words  were  read  by  the  translator 
by  supplying  vowels  differing  from  those  now  employed,  and  in 
such  a  way  as  to  make  it  plain  that  his  copy  had  no  written 
vowels  ;  e.g.  &MM  ^30,  he  is  a  fool,  Sept.  ^pocrvvt)  co-tlv,  i.  e.,  the 
translator  read  Mfi  bzo,  10  :  o  ;  so  ^R^  tthSEj  they  are  afraid 
of  what  is  high,  Sept.  eh  to  vipos  oiro-ovrai,  they  shall  see,  etc.,  i.  e., 
they  read  W?j  from  riX"n.  12:5.  In  the  passage  12:9,  is  a  pe- 
culiar example  of  this  sort,  viz.,  ns^ri  D^broa  *,£n  ~.£rr  ,g«,i,  he 
weighed,  and  sought  out,  and  arranged  many  apothegms,  Sept. 


103  $7.  SEPTUAGINT   VERSION. 

Kol  ov?  e&xyuurerai  Kocrfxiov  7rapaj3o\u)v,  u  e.,  the  ear  searches  out 
an  orderly  array  of  parables,  where  the  text  must  of  course  have 
been  read  D^UJB  ",£n  *\pn*  ■jtkn,  while  hspjn  is  joined  by  the 
translator  to  the  following  verse.  In  2  :  12,  7\?.tt,  the  King,  is 
rendered  t?j<s  J3ov\rjs,  i.  e.,  it  was  read  tj^HJi ,  which,  as  in  Chaldee, 
probably  meant  counsel.  In  10  :  4,  iayaa  is  an  example  of  the 
literal  sense  of  K3"^a  instead  of  the  tropical  one,  viz.,  gentleness. 
In  10  :  17;  we  have  ovk  alaxw^aovrai  for  the  Heb.  ta>rrcsa  so, 
not  on  account  of  drunkenness  ;  where,  of  course,  the  translator 
must  have  read  Pitlja  &&,  no  shame.  Instead  of  simply  saying, 
with  the  Heb.  thus  pointed,  no  shame,  the  Sept.  now  says :  They 
will  not  be  ashamed. 

In  other  cases  mistakes  were  made  by  a  wrong  reading  of 
consonants.  In  5:16,  he  renders  bs&h,  shall  eat,  by  kv  TreV^ei, 
in  mourning;  i.  c.,he  read  baa  inputting  a  for  3.  In  6  :  12  (Sept. 
7:1)  for  bsa ,  as  a  shadow,  he  has  ev  o-Kta,  exchanging  con- 
sonants as  before.  In  8:6,  for  rs'n ,  evil,  was  read  tltt .  In 
8  :  10,  ^nairih,  they  were  forgotten,  was  read  Sriawa1},  and  then 
translated  by  i7rr)ve9-eaav,  they  were  praised,  by  the  same  error 
of  reading  a  for  a.  In  7  :  12  (Sept.  7  :  13),  baa  was  again  read 
baa ,  and  translated  ws  cna'a. 

It  seems,  then,  quite  clear  that  the  translator  not  only  had  no 
written  vowels  to  guide  him,  but  that  the  consonants  a  and  3 
were  often  carelessly  written,  so  that  the  distinction  between 
them  could  be  made  only  with  difficulty.  A  fact  like  this  shows, 
also,  that  the  Hebrew  alphabet  must  have  then  had  the  same 
forms  of  letters  which  it  now  exhibits. 

In  a  few  cases,  words  in  the  text  are  overlooked;  e.  g.,  3  :  20, 
r^'r.  Van,  which  is  translated  only  by  t<x  iravra.  In  5  :  12,  tt?l 
is  omitted.  In  8  :  9,  Tax  rtf  is  either  omitted,  or  else  read  as 
Tax  -r  and  translated  to.  ocra,  inasmuch  as.  If  there  be  any 
more  omissions,  they  have  escaped  a  careful  perusal.  These 
make  quite  an  insignificant  number. 

Additions,  however,  amount  to  more  than  omissions.     Yet 


§  7.  SEPTUAGINT     VERSION.  109 

few  are  of  any  considerable  importance.  In  4  :  2,  all  is  added 
to  the  dead;  in  4:17,  merely  thy  after  sacrifice  ;  in  5:1,  above 
after  heaven  ;  in  7  :  15,  lo!  before  the  third  clause ;  7  :  22  (Ilebr. 
7 :  21),  for  they  say,  we  have  the  phrase,  the  ungodly  say  ;  in  7  : 
23  (Heb.  7  :  22),  TrActo-raKi?  7rav€p€vaerat  ere  has  no  corresponding 
original ;  and  in  the  next  clause,  xhfi  was  read  for  3H^  ;  in  7  :  27 
(Heb.  7  :  26),  #cal  epu>  is  not  in  the  Heb. ;  the  last  clause  of  8  :  17 
is  very  paraphrastic,  corresponding  only  in  a  remote  way  with  the 
Heb.  in  9  :  1 ;  in  9  :  2,  kcll  tw  Ka/«3  is  added  after  the  Heb.  3ia , 
apparently  with  good  reason,  if  analogy  in  the  rest  of  the  verse 
be  regarded ;  in  10 :  l,in  the  second  clause,  the  sense  is  strangely 
missed,  by  rendering  it  ripuov  oXtyov  aortas  V7rep  S6$av  a<ppocrvi>r]<; 
/xcydXrjv;  10  :  19,  after  yn  the  Sept.  has  added  koI  eAaiov,  and 
afterwards  inserted  raTreti/ojcret ;  and  in  11:9,  the  Greek  says  : 
"Walk  in  the  way  of  thy  heart  blameless  (a/Mo/Aos),  and  not  by 
the  sight  of  thine  eyes ; "  the  words  italicised  not  being  found  in 
the  Hebrew.  It  is  evidently  a  loose  paraphrase  of  the  Hebrew, 
designed  to  save  the  credit  of  Coheleth's  orthodoxy.  In  2  :  15, 
Slotl  6  acppcov  £K  7reptcrcrev/xaro?  AaAa  is  added  to  the  text. 

These  are  nearly  all  the  additions  made  to  the  text,  in  the 
translation  before  us.  They  constitute  but  a  small  list,  consider- 
ing the  length  of  the  book  ;  and  they  are  of  very  little  importance 
in  a  doctrinal  point  of  view.  Doubtless  the  translator,  although 
he  follows  the  Hebrew  so  closely  in  his  version,  did  not  feel  him- 
self bound  to  say,  in  all  cases,  exactly  what  the  Hebrew  says,  and 
no  more.  Still,  he  would  have  done  better  to  stick  closely  to  his 
text ;  for  his  additions  do  not  help  the  sense  of  the  Hebrew,  nor 
enable  us  better  to  understand  it. 

In  some  cases  we  find  mistakes  in  the  Greek  version.     In 

3:16,  we  have  tvo-tfiijs  where  we  should  have  do-£/3rjs  (probably, 

however,  a  mere  error  of  some  transcriber) ;  4  : 1  is  crvKocpavTias, 

false  accusations,  for  d^pllBSin  ;   4  :  4,  av&piav  for  "ji*ntt53 ;   5  :  5, 

iva  p,rj  for  rrab  ;  5  :  6  he  renders  :  In  the  multitude  of  dreams, 

and  of  vanities,  and  of  many  words,  mistaking  the  relation  of  the 

10 


110  §7.   SEPTUAGINT/  VERSION. 

last  two  nouns.  To  save  detail,  I  refer  the  reader  to  1  :  17,  18 ; 
2  :  12,  20,  25;  5  :  9,  10;  7:  8,  13,  15,  17,  2G;  10  :  19  ;  12  :  5, 
11.  This  last-cited  passage  (12  :  11)  is  worth  inserting,  for  its 
version  of  perhaps  the  most  difficult  passage  in  the  whole  book. 
It  runs  thus  :  \6yoi  cro<£ujv  w?  ra  fiovKevrpa,  koi  u>s  r}\oi  Trecpvrev  pi- 
vot, ol  7rapa  twv  avvSrjfxdTwv  e&6$r)crav  Ik  iroip,evo<z  evo<g,  i.  e.,  "  The 
words  of  the  wise  are  as  goads,  and  as  nails  driven  in,  which  are 
given  from  the  collections  by  one  shepherd;"  almost  as  rendered 
by  Hitzig,  and  with  only  a  shade  of  difference  from  the  version 
wrhich  I  have  given  to  it  in  the  Commentary.  One  cannot  well 
see  why  such  strange  translations  should  have  been  made  of  this 
verse,  either  in  earlier  or  later  times,  with  tins  model  before  the 
writers.  The  Trapa  o-w^/xctTwv  gives  us  a  hint  of  the  true  sense 
of  r.'SSK  %;:,  the  j)ossessors  of  collections,  and  napa  here  marks 
merely  the  relation  of  source,  wrhile  <jvv$rjp.<x  means  lit.  things  pat 
together.  The  translator  failed  to  discern  that  these  Hebrew 
words  are  in  the  Nom.,  and  constitute  the  subject  of  the  second 
clause.     See  Commentary. 

Besides  this,  there  are  other  fortunate  renderings.  For  ex- 
ample, in  5:8,  Kcu  7reptcrcrcta  yrjs  €7rt  iravTi  earn,  fiao-iXevs  rov 
aypov  elpyaa-p.evov,  exactly  true  to  the  original,  and  quite  plain, 
although  endlessly  varied  in  modern  times.  So  the  last  clause 
of  5  :  19,  6  0eo?  7repLcnra  avrbv  ev  evcfipocrvvr)  Kap8tas  avrov.  Here 
7re/noyxa  means  to  divert  one's  attention  from  a  thing,  and  so  to 
divert  it,  in  this  case,  from  brooding  over  afflictions  in  past  times. 
This  is  accomplished  by  the  joyful  state  of  mind  now  conferred. 
The  lleb.  rta?a  has  more  usually  been  rendered  here  by  humble 
or  afflict,  while  it  means  in  reality,  in  the  case  before  us,  causes 
to  answer  or  correspond  with.  In  another  way  than  by  a  literal 
rendering,  the  Sept.  has  hit  upon  the  kernel  of  the  thought,  and 
very  expressively  given  it.  These  may  serve  as  specimens.  To 
save  room,  I  must  merely  refer  the  reader  to  other  more  or  less 
happy  renderings  of  difficult  and  controverted  passages;  e.g., 
(')  :  .'!  ;  7  :  25  ;  10  :  10  (singularly  curious,  but  not  correct)  ;  10  : 
11 ;  12:11,  which  is  given  in  full  above. 


§7.   VULGATE    VERSION.  Ill 

On  the  whole,  this  version  should  be  a  Vade  mecum  with  the 
student  of  this  book.  Even  where  he  does  not  get  light  from  it, 
he  will  feel  an  interest  in  it,  and  will  be  led  to  inquire  how  and 
why  the  writer  departed  from  the  apparent  meaning  of  the  He- 
brew ;  and  such  inquiries  will  lead  him  to  a  more  minute  study 
of  the  Hebrew.  The  literal  nature  of  the  version  in  general  is 
an  admirable  pledge  for  the  correctness  of  the  present  Hebrew 
text,  as  compared  with  what  it  was  in  the  time  of  the  translator. 

(II.)  The  Vulgate.  This  is  so  commonly  known,  and  so 
easy  of  access,  that  much  need  not  be  said  here  respecting  it. 
Jerome,  as  every  one  will  see  who  reads  his  work,  translated  from 
the  original  Hebrew.  This  he  did,  after  having  spent  some 
twenty  years  in  Palestine,  in  order  to  learn  it  thoroughly.  He 
accomplished  his  object,  beyond  what  we  should  have  deemed 
possible,  under  his  disadvantages.  There  were  then  no  grammars, 
no  lexicons,  no  commentaries,  extant  to  guide  him,  unless  we  name 
the  scanty  remarks  of  Origen  on  the  Hebrew  a  help  of  importance; 
which  would  surely  be  overrating  them.  But  he  had  the  Rabbies 
of  Tiberias  to  give  him  instruction,  among  whom  the  Masora,  if 
not  the  Talmud,  was  already  concocting.  It  is  plain  that  they 
possessed  a  good  traditional  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew. 

In  translating  Coheleth,  Jerome  doubtless  made  use  of  the 
same  Sept.  version  that  has  been  characterized  above.  His 
translation,  rigidly  as  he  professes  to  follow  the  Hebrew,  has,  on 
the  whole,  quite  as  many  deviations  from  a  literal  rendering  as 
the  Septuagint.  E.  g.,  the  very  difficult  passage  in  3  :  11,  he 
renders  thus:  "  Cuncta  fecit  bona  in  tempore  suo,  et  mundum 
tradidit  disputationi  eorum,ut  non  inveniat  homo  opus  quod,  etc." 
How  he  disposed  of  dsVa,  to  make  disputationi  eorum  of  it,  one 
cannot  well  see.  Rather  better  has  he  hit  the  spirit  of  5  :  8  : 
"  Et  insuper  universae  terrae  rex  imperat  servienti;"  still,  it  is 
scarcely  possible  here  to  show  how  he  disposed  of  the  original 
Hebrew  words,  in  order  to  make  out  such  a  version.  The  dis- 
puted 3  :  21,  fcrrs  nbbr.  etc.,  he  renders  interrogatively:  "  Quis 


112  $7.   SYRIAC     VERSION. 

novit  si  spiritus,  etc.,;"  as  also  the  Sept.  does.  The  controverted 
8  :  10  he  renders :  "  Vidi  impios  sepiiltos,  qui  etiam  cum  adhuc 
viverent,  in  loco  sancto  erant,  et  laudabantur  in  civitate  quasi 
justorum  operum."  Nothing  is  plainer  than  that  he  did  not  un- 
derstand the  Hebrew  here  ;  or,  at  all  events,  it  is  clear  that  he 
has  not  given  us  a  picture  which  nearly  resembles  the  original. 
The  very  difficult  12  :  11,  he  has,  by  the  aid  of  the  Sept.,  hit 
much  nearer :  "  Verba  sapientium  sicut  stimuli,  et  quasi  clavi  in 
altum  defixi,  quae  per  magistrorum  consilium  data  sunt  a  pastore 
uno." 

In  general,  as  we  might  expect,  Jerome  follows  closely  the 
Hebrew,  and  shows  himself  to  be  familiar  with  the  idiom  of  the 
book.  But  where  one  comes  to  a  serious  critical  difficulty,  which 
nothing  but  a  nicer  knowledge  of  formal  grammar  and  of  syntax 
will  solve,  he  may  usually  expect  to  find  Jerome  halting.  About 
the  same  dependence  can  be  placed  on  him  as  on  the  Sept. ;  and 
neither  of  them  will  satisfy,  in  all  respects,  the  present  demands 
of  criticism.  But  still  the  Vulgate  is  well  worth  consulting :  es- 
pecially as  showing  the  actual  acquisitions  of  one  of  the  Chris- 
tian fathers  in  the  Hebrew ;  and  as  the  product  of  the  only  real 
and  thorough  Hebrew  scholar  among  them. 

(III.)  The  Syriac  Version,  or  Peshito.  This  is,  in 
respect  to  time,  the  next  after  that  of  the  Septuagint.  This  was 
doubtless  made  directly  from  the  Hebrew,  because  this  language 
was  more  easily  understood  by  a  Syrian  than  the  Greek.  Jerome 
appears  to  have  had  no  knowledge  of  this  version ;  although  he 
might  have  been  aided  by  it  in  a  number  of  respects.  But  there 
is  no  good  evidence  that  he  drew  from  it.  In  some  cases,  where 
Jerome  has  a  peculiar  rendering,  the  like  may  be  found  in  the 
Syriac ;  which  looks  as  if  the  former  drew  from  the  latter.  But 
here  again  we  may  without  much  difficulty  suppose,  if  possible, 
thai  Jerome  of  himself  hit  upon  the  same  mode  of  paraphrasing 
a  difficult  passage  which  the  Syriac  translator  had  adopted. 

That  the   Syriac   Peshito  was  made  in  the  second  century, 


§  7.   SYRIAC    VERSION.  113 

seems,  from  the  recent  investigations,  highly  probable.  The 
name  itself  (JL^L^as  Peshito)  signifies  simple;  and  it  seems 
plainly  to  have  been  given  to  the  translation  as  a  simple  and  lit- 
eral version,  in  opposition  to,  and  distinction  from,  all  paraphras- 
tic and  allegorical  versions,  for  example  such  as  the  Targum 
below.  Ephrem  Syrus  (flour.  350),  who  wrote  Commentaries 
in  Syriac  during  the  fourth  century,  speaks  of  the  Peshito  as 
being  our  translation  (Poc.  ad  Joelem,  fol.  2) :  and  he  under- 
takes to  explain  a  number  of  Syriac  words  in  the  version  as 
being  already  antiquated,  and  unknown  to  common  readers. 
Tradition  among  the  Syrians  goes  back  even  to  the  apostle 
Thaddeus  and  king  Abgarus  of  Edessa,  as  causing  the  transla- 
tion to  be  made  (Wiseman,  Hor.  Syr.  p.  103).  It  is  not  con- 
tented even  with  this,  but  assigns  the  translation  of  a  part  of  the 
Old  Test,  to  the  age  of  Hiram,  king  of  Tyre,  who,  as  it  says, 
requested  and  obtained  a  translation  of  some  books  from  Solo- 
mon (Wisem.  ut  sup.  p.  97).  At  all  events,  considering  how 
early  Christianity  was  introduced  into  Syria,  and  how  learning 
flourished  at  Edessa,  we  shall  not  be  in  danger  of  erring  much 
if  we  assign  the  version  before  us  to  the  second  century,  and 
perhaps  even  to  the  middle  or  earlier  half  of  it. 

Be  this,  however,  as  it  may,  nothing  is  more  plain  and  certain 
than  that  the  translation  was  made  directly  from  the  Hebrew. 
Jews  in  great  numbers,  wrho  had  been  driven  out  of  Palestine, 
had  emigrated  to  Syria,  and  lived  there,  at  the  period  in  question. 
A  Christian  Jew  was  the  probable  author  of  the  translation ;  for 
the  manner  of  handling  the  Messianic  passages  shows  clearly  his 
Christian  predilections.  Whatever  resemblances  may  be  found 
in  it  to  some  peculiarities  of  the  Sept.,  it  is  plain  that  they  come 
from  later  interpolations,  made  with  the  design  of  conforming  it 
to  the  Septuagint. 

The  following  testimony  of  Havernick  respecting  this  version 
seems  to  me  to  be  quite  correct :  "  Among  all  the  known  ancient 
versions,  no  one  attaches  itself  so  faithfully  to  the  original  as  the 

10* 


114  §7.    ARABIC    VERSION. 

Peshito.  Usually,  it  gives  the  sense  of  the  ground-text  very 
happily ;  and  even  where  it  indulges  in  explanation,  it  limits 
itself  merely  to  what  is  necessary,  and  shuns  all  paraphrastic 
prolixity"  (Einl.  s.  95).  The  translator  (doubtless  of  Jewish 
origin)  stood  in  the  same  relation  to  the  Hebrew  as  did  the 
Sept.  translators.  But  the  former  had  one  advantage  over  the 
latter,  viz.,  that  the  idiom  into  which  he  translated  was  altogether 
a  twin  sister  of  the  Hebrew,  while  the  Greek  was  sufficiently 
remote  from  it.  Hence  the  Syriac  translator  could  give,  and  has 
given,  a  more  exact  picture  of  the  Hebrew  than  the  Sept.  pre- 
sents. The  chief  reason  why  appeal  has  not  oftener  been  made 
to  it  in  Old  Test,  commentaries,  seems  to  have  been  a  want  of 
familiarity  with  it,  and  a  want  of  knowledge  as  to  its  real  worth. 

(IV.)  The  Arabic  Version,  which  appears  in  Walton's 
Polyglot,  was  partly  made  from  the  original  Hebrew,  and  partly, 
as  it  would  seem,  from  the  Septuagint.  So  far  as  it  respects 
Coheleth,  it  is  by  no  means  an  unskilful  version.  It  keeps  close 
to  the  text,  and  indulges  in  no  prolix  or  conjectural  explanations, 
like  to  those  of  the  Targum  and  the  Midrashic  commentaries. 
But  the  difficulty  of  reading  it,  and  indeed  of  getting  access  to  it, 
is  such,  that  but  little  use  has  hitherto  been  made  of  it.  When, 
and  hj  whom,  it  was  made,  is  unknown.  So  much  seems  proba- 
ble, viz.,  that  it  was  made  by  an  Arabian  Jew,  who  was  probably 
a  Christian. 

(V.)  The  Targum.  Not  long  before  the  Christian  era,  most 
of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  were  translated  into  the  Chaldee  lan- 
cua^e,  for  the  use  of  those  who  could  not  readily  understand  the 
original  Hebrew.  After  the  return  from  the  Babylonish  exile, 
the  Jewish  people  in  general  spoke  the  Chaldee,  which  they  had 
learned  during  the  long  period  of  their  captivity.  The  Penta- 
teuch was  translated  into  this  language  by  Onkelos ;  the  histori- 
cal and  prophetical  books  by  Jonathan  ben  Uzziel,  who  prob- 
ably preceded  Onkelos  in  respect  to  time ;  and  here  the  work  of 
translation,  for  a  considerable  period,  ceased.     At  a  later  period, 


§7.  CHALDEE    TAEGUM.  115 

the  books  of  Job,  Psalms,  and  Proverbs,  and  finally,  with  the 
exception  of  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  Daniel,  all  the  rest  of  the 
Hagiography  were  translated  or  paraphrased  into  Chaldee.  Ezra 
and  Nchemiah  were  anciently  counted  as  one  book ;  and,  since  a 
part  of  this  composite  book,  and  nearly  half  of  Daniel,  were 
originally  written  in  Chaldee,  no  attempt  has  ever  been  made,  so 
far  as  I  know,  to  give  the  whole  book  a  Chaldee  translation. 

The  books  of  Ruth,  Cant.,  and  Ecc,  were  translated,  as  it 
would  seem,  last  of  all ;  but  exactly  when,  or  by  ivhom,  is  not 
known.  Since,  however,  in  Cant.,  the  Targums,  and  probably 
the  Mohammedans  are  mentioned  (Cant.  1:2;  5  :  11 — G  :  7),  it 
would  seem  that  the  version  of  the  three  books  last  named  was 
post-  Talmudic. 

The  internal  evidence  of  late  composition  is  made  out,  (1) 
From  the  kind  of  idiom  ( Chaldaeo-Rabbinic)  which  pervades 
them.  (2)  From  the  fashion  of  the  commentary  (as  it  might  be 
called),  or  paraphrase,  which  shows  that  the  Midrash  {frtnj)  or 
allegorical commentary 'had  already  been  fully  adopted  (see  Buxt. 
Lex.  Chald.  on  the  word).  As  we  have  scarcely  any  specimen 
of  this  kind  of  paraphrase  or  commentary  which  is  accessible  in 
English  books,  and  as  it  is  a  matter  of  some  interest  that  every 
Hebrew  student  should  know  what  kind  of  a  version  or  commen- 
tary he  will  find  in  a  work  written  after  the  manner  of  a  Mid- 
rash,  I  shall  here  lay  before  him  a  specimen  (rather  a  prominent 
one)  from  the  Targum,  on  Ecc.  ii.  The  large  type  represents  a 
close  translation  of  the  original  Hebrew ;  that  which  follows,  in 
each  case,  in  smaller  letters,  gives  the  Targum,  which  is  as  lit- 
erally translated  as  the  two  idioms  will  bear. 

Ecc.  ii. 

(1)  I  said  in  my  heart :  Come,  now,  let  me  try  thee  with 
pleasure,  and  do  thou  enjoy  good ;  and  lo !  even  this  is  vanity. 

I  said  in  my  heart :  Come  hither  now,  and  I  will  try  thee  with  pleasure ; 
and  when  distress  and  affliction  came  upon  me,  I  said,  by  his  word,  Lo  !  this 
also  is  vanity. 


116  §7.    ECC.  II.  WITH  TARGUM. 

(2)  In  respect  to  laughter,  I  said :  Madness !  And  in  respect 
to  pleasure  :  What  avails  it  ? 

In  respect  to  laughter,  I  said,  in  a  season  of  distress  :  It  is  mockery  ! 
And  in  respect  to  pleasure  :  Of  what  use  is  it  to  the  man  who  procures  it  1 

(3)  I  sought  in  my  mind  to  draw  my  flesh  by  wine,  and  my 
mind  continued  to  guide  with  sagacity ;  and  also  to  lay  hold  upon 
folly ;  until  I  should  see  what  is  good  for  the  sons  of  men,  which 
they  should  do  during  the  number  of  the  days  of  their  lives. 

I  sought  in  my  mind  to  protract  in  the  banqueting-house  of  wine  my 
flesh,  and  my  heart  guided  with  wisdom  ;  and  also  to  lay  hold  on  the  folly 
of  the  young,  until  I  should  try  and  see  what  there  is  of  them  which  is  good 
for  the  sons  of  men,  which  they  may  procure  while  they  abide  in  this  world 
under  heaven,  during  the  number  of  the  days  of  their  lives. 

(4)  I  engaged  in  great  undertakings;  I  built  for  myself 
houses,  and  planted  for  myself  vineyards. 

I  multiplied  goodly  works  in  Jerusalem  ;  I  built  for  myself  houses ;  the 
house  of  the  sanctuary  to  make  atonement  for  Israel ;  and  the  house  of  re- 
freshment for  the  king  ;  the  council-chamber,  and  the  porch,  and  the  house 
of  judgment  with  hewn  stones,  where  the  wise  men  sat  who  exercised  judg- 
ment ;  I  made  a  throne  of  ivory  for  the  seat  of  royalty ;  I  made  plantations 
for  myself  in  Jabne  for  the  sake  of  grape-vines,  that  we  might  drink  wine, 
myself  and  the  masters  of  the  Sanhedrim  and  also  make  libations  of  win© 
new  and  old  upon  the  altar. 

(5)  I  made  for  myself  gardens  and  pleasure-grounds ;  and  I 
planted  in  them  fruit-trees  of  every  kind. 

I  made  for  myself  watered  gardens  and  pleasure-grounds ;  and  I  sowed 
there  all  kinds  of  herbs,  some  of  them  tor  the  use  of  food,  and  some  of  them 
for  the  use  of  drink,  and  some  of  them  for  a  medicinal  use,  every  kind  of  aro- 
matic herb  ;  I  planted  in  them  sterile  trees,  and  all  kinds  of  aromatic  trees 
which  the  sprites  and  demons  brought  to  me  from  India,  and  every  kind 
of  tree  which  produces  fruit  :  and  its  boundary  was  from  the  wall  of  the  city 
which  is  in  Jerusalem  to  the  margin  of  the  waters  of  Siloah. 

( G)  I  made  for  myself  pools  of  water,  for  watering  from  them 
the  forest  shooting  up  trees. 


§7.  ECC.  II.  WITH  TARGUM.  117 

I  sought  out  a  receptacle  of  water,  such  as  is  needful  to  water  trees  and 
herbs  ;  and  I  made  for  myself  pools  of  water,  from  them  also  to  water  the 
grove  producing  wood. 

(7)  I  procured  servants  and  handmaids,  and  those  born  in  the 
house  belonged  to  me  ;  much  property  also  in  flocks  and  herds 
belonged  to  me,  more  than  to  all  who  were  in  Jerusalem  before 
me. 

I  procured  servants  and  handmaids,  who  were  of  the  children  of  Ham  and 
other  foreign  nations  ;  and  stewards,  appointed  over  the  feeding  of  my  house- 
hold, belonged  to  me,  for  the  nourishing  of  me  and  the  men  of  my  house, 
twelve  months  of  the  year  :  and  one  for  nourishing  me  during  the  intercalary 
month  ;  moreover,  I  possessed  cattle  and  sheep,  more  than  all  the  dwellers 
who  were  before  me  in  Jerusalem. 

(8)  I  heaped  up  for  myself  silver  and  gold,  and  the  treasures 
of  kings  and  provinces  ;  I  procured  for  myself  singing-men  and 
singing-women,  and  the  delight  of  the  sons  of  men,  a  wife  and 
wives. 

I  heaped  up  for  myself  treasures  of  silver  and  fine  gold,  that  I  might  make 
the  weights  and  balances  of  justice  out  of  pure  gold  ;  and  the  treasures  of 
kings  and  provinces  were  given  to  me  for  tribute  5  I  made  in  the  house  of 
the  sanctuary  instruments  of  music,  that  the  Levites  might  make  music  with 
them,  while  presenting  oblations  ;  and  harps  and  pipes,  that  the  singing  men 
and  women  might  make  music  with  them  in  the  banquet-house ;  and  the 
delights  of  the  sons  of  men,  warm  baths  and  baths  with  tubes  which  poured 
forth  tepid  water,  and  pipes  which  poured  forth  hot  water. 

(9)  And  I  waxed  great  and  increased  more  than  all  who  were 
before  me  in  Jerusalem  ;  my  wisdom  also  continued  with  me. 

And  I  increased  goods  and  added  riches,  above  all  the  dwellers  who  were 
before  me  in  Jerusalem  ;  my  wisdom,  however,  remained  with  me  and  helped 
me. 

(10)  And  all  which  my  eyes  sought  for,  I  withheld  not  from 
them ;  I  kept  not  back  my  heart  from  any  joy;  for  my  heart  was 
cheered  by  all  my  toil,  and  this  was  my  portion  of  all  my  toil. 

And  as  to  nil  whi.ch  the  musters  of  the  Sanhedrim  requested  of  me,  in  re- 
spect to  purifying  and  polluting,  to  justifying  and  condemning  —  I  kept  not 


118  §  7.  ECC.  II.  WITH  TARGUM. 

back  from  the  explanation  of  things,  I  restrained  not  my  heart  from  every 
joy  of  the  Law  ;  for  I  had  an  inclination  of  heart  to  rejoice  in  the  wisdom, 
which  had  been  given  to  me  from  God  more  than  to  all  other  men  ;  and  I 
rejoiced,  and  this  was  the  goodly  portion  which  was  assigned  to  me,  to 
receive  on  account  of  it  a  perfect  reward  in  the  world  to  come  for  all  my 
toil. 

(11)  Then  I  turned  towards  all  the  works  which  my  hands 
had  performed,  and  towards  the  toil  which  I  had  labored  to  ac- 
complish, and  lo  !  all  was  vanity  and  fruitless  effort,  and  there 
is  no  profit  under  the  sun. 

Then  I  considered  all  the  works  which  my  hands  had  accomplished,  and 
the  toil  which  I  had  labored  to  accomplish  ;  and  lo  !  all  was  vanity  and  crush- 
ing of  spirit ;  for  there  is'  no  profit  in  them  under  the  sun,  in  this  world,  but 
there  is  a  perfect  reward  for  good  works  in  the  world  to  come. 

(12)  Then  I  turned  to  contemplate  wisdom,  even  madness  and 
folly  ;  for  what  shall  the  man  [do,]  who  comes  after  the  king  ? 
Even  that  which  he  did  long  ago. 

Then  I  gave  attention  in  order  to  see  wisdom,  and  the  commotions  of  the 
kingdom,  and  understanding  ;  for  of  what  use  is  it  to  a  man  to  make  suppli- 
cation after  the  decree  of  the  king,  and  after  retribution  1  See  !  long  ago 
was  the  decision  made  respecting  him,  and  it  was  done  for  him. 

(13)  I  saw,  moreover,  that  there  is  a  preference  of  wisdom 
over  folly,  like  the  preference  of  light  over  darkness. 

I  saw,  moreover,  by  the  spirit  of  prophecy,  that  there  is  a  preference  of 
wisdom  over  folly,  more  than  the  preference  of  the  light  of  day  over  the  dark- 
ness of  the  night 

(14)  The  eyes  of  the  wise  man  are  in  his  head,  but  the  fool 
walketh  in  darkness;  yet  still  I  know,  even  1,  that  one  destiny 
awaits  them  all. 

The  wise  man  sees  in  the  beginning  what  will  come  to  pass  at  the  end  ; 
and  ho  prays  and  averts  the  decree  of  evil  from  the  world;  but  the  fool  walk- 
eth in  darkness  ;  and  I  also  know,  even  I,  that  if  the  wise  man  does  not  pray, 
and  avert  the  decree  of  evil  from  the  world,  when  retribution  shall  come 
Upon  the  world,  one  destiny  shall  overtake  all  of  them. 


§  7.   ECC.   II.   WITH   TARGUM.  119 

(15)  Then  I  said  in  my  heart:  As  is  the  destiny  of  the  fool, 
so  also  will  it  happen  to  myself;  and  why  then  should  I  be  over- 
much wise  ?     Then  said  I  in  my  heart:  This  also  is  vanity. 

Then  I  said  in  my  heart,  as  is  the  destiny  of  Saul  the  son  of  Kish  (the  king 
who  perversely  revolted,  and  kept  not  the  command  which  he  had  received 
concerning  Amalek,  and  the  kingdom  was  taken  from  him),  so  will  it  hap- 
pen to  me,  and  why  then  am  I  thus  wise  more  than  he  ?  Then  I  said  in  my 
heart,  that  this  truly  is  vanity,  and  there  is  nothing  except  the  decree  of  the 
word  of  Jehovah. 

(16)  For  to  the  wise  man,  with  the  fool,  there  is  no  remem- 
brance forever  ;  because  that  long  ago  (in  days  which  are  to 
come)  every  one  will  have  been  forgotten.  And  —  how  dieth 
the  wise  man  like  the  fool ! 

For  there  is  no  rememh ranee  to  the  wise,  with  the  fool,  in  the  world  to 
come  ;  and  after  the  death  of  a  man,  that  which  was  long  ago  in  his  time 
(when  the  days  shall  come  which  will  be  after  him),  even  all  will  be  discov- 
ered. Then  why  do  the  sons  of  men  say  that  the  end  of  the  righteous  is 
like  the  end  of  the  wicked  % 

(17)  Then  I  hated  life ;  for  the  deeds  that  are  done  under  the 
sun  were  odious  to  me ;  for  all  is  vanity  and  worthless  effort. 

Then  I  hated  all  of  saddening  life,  because  evil  is  upon  me,  even  the  evil 
work  which  is  done  against  the  sons  of  men  under  heaven,  in  this  world; 
because  all  is  vanity  and  crushing  of  spirit. 

(18)  Yea,  I  hated  all  the  toil  which  I  had  performed  under 
the  sun,  because  I  must  leave  it  to  the  man  who  shall  come  after 
me. 

Yea,  I  hated  all  the  toil  which  I  had  performed  under  the  sun,  in  this 
world,  because  I  must  leave  it  to  Kehoboam,  my  son,  who  will  come  after 
me  ;  and  Jeroboam,  his  servant  will  come,  and  will  take  out  of  his  hands  the 
ten  tribes,  and  possess  half  of  the  kingdom. 

(19)  And  who  knoweth  whether  he  will  be  a  wise  man  or  a 
fool?  And  yet  he  will  have  power  over  all  my  toil  which  I 
have  performed,  and  on  which  I  have  exercised  my  sagacity  under 
the  sun.     This  too  is  vanity. 


120  §7.   ECC.   II.   WITH  TARGUM. 

And  who  knowcth  whether  he  will  he  a  wise  man  or  a  fool,  viz.,  the  king 
who  will  come  after  me  ?  And  yet  he  will  have  poAvcr  over  all  the  toil  that 
I  have  performed  in  this  world,  and  over  all  which  I  have  acquired  by  my 
sagacity  under  the  sun,  in  this  world.  And  I  was  confounded  in  my  mind, 
and  I  said  again  :  This  too  is  vanity. 

(20)  Then  I  turned  to  make  my  heart  despair  in  respect  to  all 
the  toil  which  I  had  performed  under  the  sun. 

Then  I  turned  to  make  my  heart  despair  respecting  the  toil  to  acquire, 
which  I  had  performed  under  the  sun;  and  because  that  I  had  been  saga- 
cious to  make  preparation  under  the  sun,  in  this  world. 

(21)  For  there  is  a  man  who  has  toiled  with  sagacity,  and 
with  intelligence,  and  with  dexterity,  and  to  a  man  who  has  never 
toiled  for  it,  must  he  leave  his  portion  :  This  too  is  vanity,  and  a 
sore  evil. 

For  there  is  a  man  who  has  toiled  with  wisdom,  and  with  intelligence,  and 
with  justice,  and  he  dieth  Avithout  children ;  and  to  the  man  who  has  not 
toiled  for  it,  must  he  give  it  to  be  his  portion :  This  is  vanity  and  a  great 
evil. 

(22)  For  what  is  there  for  a  man  in  all  his  toil  and  strenuous 
efforts  of  his  heart,  which  he  has  performed  under  the  sun  ? 

For  what  is  there  useful  to  a  man,  as  to  his  toil  and  the  worrying  of  his 
heart,  which  he  has  toiled  for  under  the  sun,  in  the  present  wrorld  1 

(23)  For  all  his  days  are  grievous,  and  his  employment  har- 
assing ;  even  by  night  his  heart  is  not  quiet. 

For  all  his  days  arc  grievous,  and  his  business  makes  vehement  his  indig- 
nation ;  even  by  night  he  sleeps  not,  because  of  the  solicitude  of  his  heart. 
Truly  this  is  vanity  ! 

(21)  There  is  nothing  better  for  a  man  than  that  he  should 
eal  and  drink,  and  enjoy  good  in  his  toil ;  even  this  I  have  seen 
to  be  from  the  hand  of  God. 

There  is  nothing  which  is  comely  for  man,  except  that  lie  eat  and  drink 
and  make  his  soul  to  enjoy  good  before  the  sons  of  men,  that  he  may  per- 
form the  commandments,  and  walk,  in  the  ways  which  are  right  before  him, 


§7.  ECC.  II.  WITH  TARGUM.  121 

that  it  may  be  well  with  him  on  account  of  his  toil ;  yea,  this  have  I  seen, 
that  when  a  man  prospers  in  this  world,  it  is  from  the  hand  of  God  that  thia 
is  decreed  to  be  unto  him. 

(25)  For  who  can  eat,  and  who  can  enjoy  himself  more  than  I  ? 

For  who  is  he  that  will  bestow  labor  on  the  matters  of  the  Law,  and  who 
is  the  man  that  has  solicitude  concerning  the  great  day  of  judgment  which 
is  to  come,  more  than  I  ? 

(26)  For  to  the  man  who  is  well-pleasing  in  his  sight,  hath 
he  given  sagacity,  intelligence,  and  enjoyment  ;  but  to  the  sinner 
hath  he  given  the  task  of  gathering  and  amassing,  that  it  may  be 
given  to  him  who  is  well-pleasing  in  the  sight  of  God.  This  is 
vanity  and  fruitless  effort. 

But  to  the  man  whose  works  are  upright  before  Jehovah,  hath  he  given 
wisdom  and  knowledge  in  this  world,  and  joy  with  the  righteous  in  the 
world  which  is  to  come ;  but  to  the  man  who  is  a  sinner  hath  he  given  a 
grievous  task,  to  amass  riches,  and  to  heap  up  many  possessions,  that  they 
may  be  taken  from  him,  and  given  to  the  man  who  is  well-pleasing  in  the 
sight  of  God ;  surely  this  is  vanity  to  the  sinner,  and  a  crushing  of  his  spirit ! 

From  even  a  slight  comparison  of  the  Talmudic  version  with 
the  original  Heb.,  it  is  evident  that  the  translator  meant  to  act 
the  paraphrast  or  commentator,  as  well  as  the  Targumist.  most 
of  the  additions  consist  of  minute  specifications  of  particulars,  e.  g., 
as  in  v.  4,  the  simple  word  fi^Pia,  houses,  and  again,  in  v.  5,  the 
words  gardens  and  pleasure-grounds,  are  expanded  into  long  de- 
tail derived  from  history  or  tradition.  Besides  this,  many  clauses 
are  added  throughout,  for  the  sake  of  explanation,  and  sometimes 
to  guard  the  reader  against  assigning  to  a  word  or  a  phrase  a 
wrong  sense.  Thus,  after  the  declaration  of  the  text  in  v.  11, 
that  there  is  no  profit  wider  the  sun,  the  Targumist  adds :  but 
there  is  a  perfect  reward  for  my  works  in  the  world  to  come. 
This  is  a  specimen  of  the  Hineinexegesiren  or  interpreting  into 
the  text,  rather  than  showing  what  the  text  of  itself  means. 
But  this  is  not  a  practice  limited  to  the  Rabbins ;  for  it  has  come 

11 


122  §  7.  ECC.   II.   WITH  TARGUM. 

down  to  the  present  hour,  and  is  exhibited  in  all  our  homiletic 
commentaries.  Where  the  matter  thus  added  is  good  and  true, 
there  is  no  special  objection  to  it  in  this  species  of  commentary, 
provided  the  writers  do  not  claim  for  their  additions  the  same 
authority  which  the  original  text  has.  But  this  is  too  often  the 
ease. 

One  feature  of  the  proper  Midrash,  the  launching  forth  into 
the  great  abyss  of  vttovolol,  i.  e.,  an  under  or  secondary,  occult,  fig- 
urative, and  symbolic  meaning  is  wanting  in  this  Targum.  We 
find  a  leaning  towards  this,  as  to  some  of  the  dilucidating  partic- 
ulars ;  e.  g.,  when,  in  v.  5,  the  Targumist  mentions  "  the  aromatic 
trees  which  the  sprites  and  demons  brought  to  Solomon  from 
India."  Bordering  on  this  will  be  found  the  pregnant  meaning 
assigned  to  the  simple  text  in  vs.  15, 18.  The  translator  anxiously 
watches  over  every  expression  which  might  seem  to  be  at  vari- 
ance with  orthodoxy.  E.g.,  where  (v.  14)  Coheleth  declares  that 
one  "  and  the  same  destiny  awaits  all  men, "  both  wise  and  fool- 
ish, the  Targumist  adds,  that  this  will  happen,  -provided  the  wise 
man  does  not  pray,  and  avert  the  decreed  evil  from  the  world 
when  the  retribution  shall  come  ;  a  condition  and  mode  of  escape 
not  provided  for  by  the  original  author. 

Among  other  things,  the  writer  (as  usual  among  the  Rabbins) 
betrays  his  ignorance  of  historical  geography.  He  represents 
(v.  4)  Solomon  as  planting  vineyards  in  Jabneh,  a  place  on  the 
Mediterranean  sea  belonging  to  the  Philistines,  until  some  200 
years  later  than  Solomon's  time,  and  taken  from  them  by  Uzziah 
about  800  b.  c.  But  this  is  in  good  keeping  with  Rabbinic  ge- 
ography. 

Diffuse  as  this  Targumist  is,  on  the  chapter  before  us,  it  is 
nothing  in  comparison  with  what  he  has  written  on  Canticles. 
There,  as  Jerome  says  of  Origen,  he  has  sailed  cum  pleno  vela. 
On  the  words  Song  of  Songs  lie  has  a  full  octavo  page,  giving  an 
account  of  nine  other  songs  mentioned  in  the  Scriptures.  It  is 
easy  to  see  what  latitude  a  writer  of  his  Midrashic  spirit  would 


§  8.   MODERN  VERSIONS.  123 

take  in  paraphrasing  such  a  work  as  the  Canticles.  But  even 
here  again  he  has  his  rivals  in  modern  as  well  as  ancient  days. 

The  Targumist  rarely  betrays  an  ignorance  of  the  Heb.  text. 
Yet  in  a  few  cases  he  seems  to  have  been  in  total  darkness;  e.  g., 
in  v.  8,  Fii'nTIJ'i  iT-NO,  wife  and  ivivcs,  which  he  rentiers,  warm  baths 
and  baths  with  siphons  for  tepid  and  hot  water  ;  which  is  hardly 
less  ridiculous,  however,  than  many  other  ancient  and  modern 
translations  of  the  clause.  The  Sept.  version  has  some  more  re- 
semblance to  a  possible  meaning  of  the  Heb.  original,  viz.,  otVo- 
Xoov  kcll  oii/o^oas,  i.  e.,  a  butler  and  female  butlers;  deriving  Ifnttj 
from  ST1U5,  to  pour  out ;  for  reading  the  text  without  vowels,  they 
lead  the  word  «"Vitt5,  without  a  Daghesh  in  *I.  Jerome  has  another 
guess,  viz.,  scyphos  et  urceos,  glasses  and  pitchers.  The  Syriac 
and  Arabic  follow  in  the  track  of  the  Septuagint.  It  is  but  a 
short  time,  indeed,  since  the  words  in  question  were  considered 
as  presenting  a  problem  not  to  be  solved.  Hitzig  has  made 
them  quite  plain. 

Mixed,  however,  with  a  few  guesses  of  a  similar  character  scat- 
tered here  and  there,  are  many  spirited  renderings  of  the  Heb.  in 
cases  where  translation  is  not  an  easy  task.  If  any  one  wishes 
to  learn  the  genius  of  the  later  Jewish  Targums,  this  on  Coheleth 
may  be  recommended  to  him,  as  affording  a  fair  specimen.  It  is 
easy  to  be  read,  with  the  aid  given  by  the  London  Polyglott,  pro- 
vided the  reader  is  somewhat  versed  in  the  Chaldee  dialect.  The 
idiom  is  thoroughly  Chaldaeo-Rabbinic. 

§  8.  Modern    Versions. 

Among  these,  in  Latin,  Arias  Montanus,  the  literalist,  whose 
version  is  mixed  with  the  Hebrew,  in  the  London  Polyglott,  may 
sometimes  be  of  service  to  the  learner.  Among  the  best  older 
versions  is  that  of  Junius  and  Tremellius.  Dathe's,  more  recent, 
has  some  good  qualities  ;  and  so  has  the  version  of  I.  F.  Schelling, 
1806. 


124  $9.  COMMENTATORS. 

Among  the  German  versions,  that  of  Knobel  and  of  De  "Wette 
are  entitled  to  special  preeminence;  both  of  them  made  from  a 
familiar  acquaintance  with  the  Hebrew.  Hitzig  and  Heiligstedt, 
in  their  commentaries,  have  translated  the  greater  portion  of  the 
book,  although  in  a  fragmentary  manner.  In  both  will  be  found 
some  happy  expressions  of  the  spirit  of  the  original ;  but  most  of 
all  in  Hitzig.  The  last-named  writer  possesses  a  knowledge  of 
the  Hebrew  which  seems  to  me  quite  rare,  notwithstanding  the 
many  fine  Hebrew  scholars  which  Germany  affords.  De  Wette, 
whose  knowledge  was  of  the  highest  cast,  does  not  appear  ever  to 
have  given  himself  very  seriously  to  the  study  of  Coheleth. 
Hence  his  somewhat  barren  chapter  on  this  book  in  his  Einlei- 
tung,  §  282  seq. ;  and  hence  he  was  less  fitted  to  render  Coheleth 
with  the  best  skill  than  either  Knobel  or  Hitzig. 

I  know  of  no  English  version,  lately  made,  which  has  any  spe- 
cial claim  on  our  attention.  Our  common  English  version  is  sub- 
stantially good ;  but  there  are  passages  in  Coheleth  which  were 
beyond  the  critical  reach  and  power  of  the  translators  at  the 
period  when  it  was  made.  I  would  fain  hope  that  the  version 
given  below  will  more  accurately  represent  the  original  text, 
and  specially  in  difficult  passages. 

§  9.   Commentators. 

I  deem  it  useless  to  aim  at  making  a  universal  list  of  them. 
My  design  extends  only  to  commentaries  critical  for  the  most 
part ;  and  even  of  these  I  shall  mention  only  a  few,  because,  in 
the  present  state  of  Hebrew  studies,  only  a  few  are  worthy  of 
particular  consideration  and  study  by  him  who  is  in  pursuit  of 
critical  knowledge. 

I.  Ancient  Commentators. 

(1)  Gregorii  Thaumaturgi  Metaphrasis  in  Ecc.  Salom.  in 
Greg.  Nazianz.  Opp.  I,  p.  749  seq.     Par.  1609. 


§  9.  COMMENTATORS.  125 

(2)  Gregorii  Nysseni  Accurate  in  Ecc.  Narratio,  Tom.  I,  p. 
373  seq.,  ed.  Par.  1615. 

(3)  Olympiodori  in  Ecc.  Comm.  in  Biblioth.  patr.  max.  Tom. 
XVIII,  p.  480,  seq. 

(4)  Oecumenii  Catena  in  Ecc.  1532. 

(5)  Hieronymi  Comm.  in  Ecc.  Opp.  Tom.  II. 

These,  with  the  exception  of  Jerome,  must  not  be  read  with 
the  expectation  of  much  critical  aid.  In  the  main,  it  is  more  a 
matter  of  curiosity  than  of  usefulness  to  spend  time  upon  them. 

II.   Older  Protestant   Commentators. 

(6)  Lutheri  Ecc.  Salomonis,  Opp.  Tom.  III.  1532. 

(7)  Merceri  Comm.  in  Job.;  Ecc.  etc.  1651. 

(8)  Grotii  Annott.  in  V.  Test.  Opp. 

(9)  Rambachii  Notae  Uberiores  in  J.  H.  Michaelis's  edit,  of 
his  Annott.  Uberiores  in  Hagiographos,  1729. 

(10)  Clerici  Vet.  Test.  Libri.  Hagiog.  1721. 

(11)  J.  D.  Michaelis  Poetischer  Entwurf  des  Predigerbuchs 
Salomo,  Gotting.  1762. 

(12)  Doderlein  Scholia  in  Lib.  V.  Test.  1784. 

(13)  Van  der  Palm,  Ecclesiastes,  Lug.  Bat.  1784. 

Here  and  there  some  good  notes  will  be  found  in  most  of 
these.  Such  men  as  Grotius,  Mercier,  and  Le  Clerc,  seldom 
wrote  without  suggesting  something  critically  valuable. 

III.   Recent  Commentators. 

(14)  Umbreit  Koheleths  Seelenkampf.  1818. 

(15) Koheleth  Scepticus  de  summo  Bono,  1820. 

(16)  Kaiser  Coheleth  (as  a  curiosity). 

(17)  Rosenmiilleri  Scholia  in  V.  Test.  1830. 

(18)  Koster,  das  Buch.  Hiob  und  Prediger,  1831. 

(19)  Knobel  Comm.  tiber  Coheleth,  1836. 

(20)  Hitzig  der  Prediger  Salomo's  1847,  in  Exeget.  Hand- 
buch  des  Alt  en  Test.  Band  VII. 

11* 


126  h  9.  COMMENTATORS. 

(21)  Heiligstedt,  in  Maureri  Comm.  gramm.  et.  crit.  Vol. 
IV.,  1848. 

Nos.  19  and  20  are  in  reality  original  works,  the  fruit  of  much 
and  deep  critical  investigation.  Knobel  led  the  way  in  this. 
Hitzig  followed,  although  not  exactly  in  his  steps.  The  work  of 
the  latter  comprises  but  little  more  than  100  pages  ;  but  it  is  full 
of  remarks  disclosing  a  most  intimate  critical  acquaintance  with 
the  Heb.  language ;  and  the  author  aims,  more  than  any  writer 
to  whom  I  have  had  access,  to  trace  the  connection  of  thought 
and  reasoning  in  the  book,  and  with  more  success.  Bating  his 
strong  neological  tendencies,  his  book  is  worthy  of  thorough  study 
and  high  regard. 

The  more  recent  work  of  Heiligstedt  has  some  good  traits. 
He  pursues  criticism  grammatically.  But  his  work  is  lacking  in 
judgment  as  to  the  course  of  thought  in  Coheleth;  and  it  contains 
some  striking  conceits  in  respect  to  a  part  of  the  difficult  passages. 
It  is  in  general  very  perspicuous  and  easily  understood. 

In  a  critical  point  of  view,  Knobel  and  Hitzig  take  the  lead, 
and  are  worth  all  the  rest  of  the  list. 

Of  the  preaching  or  homiletic  commentaries,  there  are  many, 
and  some  valuable  English  ones.  But  they  do  not  come  within 
my  present  scope.  The  preaching  pastor  may  consult  some  of 
them  to  advantage  on  ethical  subjects ;  but  he  must  not  expect 
critical  and  hermeneutical  aid  from  them.  A  work  of  a  high 
critical  character,  on  this  book,  is  as  yet  a  desideratum  in  English. 
It  was  with  a  hope  of  doing  something  to  advance  a  critical  knowl- 
edge of  the  book  among  us,  that  the  present  work  has  been 
undertaken. 


COMMENTARY  ON  ECCLESIASTES, 


CHAP.  I. 
1.    Vs.  1—11. 


The  leading  and  predominant  design  of  the  book,  to  show  the  vanity  of 
all  earthly  objects,  pursuits,  and  designs,  and  the  apparent  digressions  from  it, 
have  been  spoken  of  particularly  in  the  account  of  the  plan  of  the  book 
in  the  Introduction  (§2),  The  course  of  thought  or  argument  exhibited 
in  this  first  paragraph  or  section  of  the  work,  is  as  follows  : 

First  the  title  of  the  book,  as  usual,  is  given,  v.  1.  Next  comes  the 
general  proposition,  which  covers  the  whole  ground  of  the  work :  Vanity 
of  vanities  ;  all  is  vanity.  This  is  illustrated  by  the  following  course 
of  thought :  ■  Man,  by  all  his  efforts,  can  attain  to  no  stable  and  lasting  con- 
dition of  enjoyment;  for  there  can  be  no  stability  where  one  generation  is 
constantly  passing  from  the  stage  of  action  or  enjoyment,  and  another  is 
coming  upon  it.  On  the  other  hand,  the  world  in  which  he  lives  is  ever  and 
always  the  same.  The  occurrences  of  the  natural  world  all  take  place  in  one 
established  and  continual  round,  from  which  there  is  no  departure  or  varia- 
tion. The  sun  always  rises  and  sets  in  the  same  manner ;  the  wind  contin- 
ually goes  round  its  circuits  in  the  same  way.  The  rivers  flow  into  the  sea 
without  filling  it,  and  always  are  flowing  back  again  to  the  source  whence 
they  originated.  Language  would  fail  to  describe  all  of  the  like  occurren- 
ces. They  are  so  numerous,  that  no  eye  can  ever  be  satisfied  by  a  full 
sight;  nor  ear  so  filled,  that  no  more  remains  to  be  heard.  Yet  in  all  this 
countless  variety  of  things  there  is  nothing  new,  t.  «.,  no  betterment,  no  im- 
provement, no  change.  Any  one  who  thinks  that  any  new  thing  occurs, 
will  find  himself  mistaken.  There  is  the  same  unchangeable  and  ceaseless 
round  of  things  forever  repeated,  so  that  no  new  sources  of  pleasure  can  be 
hopefully  looked  for  in  this  quarter,  vs.  3 — 11. 


128  ECCLESIASTES    I.  1. 

From  this  introductory  statement  it  appears  that  the  writer  had  in  view 
some  propositions  of  a  general  nature.  These  consist  mainly  of  two  things  : 
first,  that  man  can  rind  no  abiding  good  in  the  present  world,  because  of  his 
own  frail  and  perishable  nature  ;  and  secondly,  that  he  cannot  secure  happi- 
ness by  making  any  changes  in  the  world,  or  in  the  state  of  things,  in  which 
sadness  and  suffering  have  been  and  are  his  lot,  since  they  are  fixed  and  im- 
mutable, and  have  been  so  ordered  and.  arranged  by  a  Power  above  him. 
Thus  he  finds  himself  helpless  and  hopeless.  Such  is  the  general  course  of 
thought  in  §  1.     We  come  now  to  the  examination  of  particulars. 

( 1 )  The  words  of  Coheleth,  the  son  of  David,  king  in  Jerusalem. 

nbn'p  i'W,  lit.  the  words  (or  sayings)  of  Coheleth,  constitute 
the  general  title  of  the  book,  ^n'n  does  not  mean  specifically 
doctrines  or  narrations,  but  things  said,  or  words  in  a  generic 
sense.  Thus  we  have  the  words  of  Jeremiah  (Jer.  1:1);  the 
words  of  Amos  (1  :  1)  ;  and  the  title  to  the  book  of  the  Chroni- 
cles is  D^rj  ^tt ,  t.  e.,  luords  in  respect  to  the  times. 

rhrip  has  the  form  of  the  Part.  act.  fern,  in  Kal.  Knobel 
( Comm.  p.  8)  asserts  that  "  concrete  are  converted  into  abstract 
nouns,  by  appending  a  fern,  ending."  This  he  represents  as  a 
universal  principle.  According  to  tins  rule  nVhp,  then,  must  of 
course  here  mean  preaching ;  and  the  abstract  being  put  for  the 
concrete  (which  indeed  is,  in  itself,  a  thing  very  common),  he 
thus  makes  out  the  signification  -preacher.  So  Gesenius,  in  his 
Thesaurus.  But  the  application  of  this  principle  to  the  Part. 
pros,  is  doubtful.  Of  the  five  examples  of  a  fern,  ending  which 
designates  an  abstract  meaning,  as  produced  by  Knobel,  all  but 
one  come  from  masc.  adjectives  ;  as,  e.  g.,  rb$&  ,  folly,  from  b|ix  , 
foolish,  etc.  rvnan  is  the  only  Part.  pres.  form  to  which  he 
adverts  ;  but  even  this  does  not  prove  the  point  in  question,  for 
in  Ex.  2G  :  1,  10,  where  it  is  employed,  its  meaning  is  socia,  and 
not  the  abstract  conjunctio.  Possibly,  however,  rnsi'n ,  abomina- 
tion  (which  is  a  frequent  word),  and  rvrh  in  Is.  28  :  15  =  rVitn 
in  v.  ]  8,  may  support  the  allegation  before  us  in  a  modified  shape, 
viz.,  that  sometimes  the  active  Part.  fern,  has  an  abstract  mean- 


ECCLESIASTES    I.  1.  129 

ing.  Beyond  this  we  cannot  safely  go.  But,  leaving  this  view 
of  the  word  as  doubtfully  established  in  such  a  way,  we  may 
illustrate  it  more  satisfactorily  by  another  view.  The  Hebrews 
were  accustomed,  in  some  cases,  to  designate  men  by  the  fern, 
name  of  the  office  which  they  held ;  e.  g.,  fiHB ,  praefect,  Neh. 
5  :  13 ;  12  :  26 ;  Mai.  1  :  8,  al.;  W3,  colleague,  Ez.  4  :  7  (fre- 
quent in  Chald.),  rftBO,  scribe,  prop,  name  in  Ez.  2  :  55 ;  Neh. 
7  :  57,  and  so  rnsb,  Ez.  2  :  57 ;  Neh.  7 :  59.  Such  a  usage  in 
Arabic  is  very  frequent;  as  nS^H,  Caliph,  nj^bn,  Creator,  and 
so  (in  fem.  forms)  advanced  age  for  old  man,  story  for  story-teller, 
care  for  curator,  service  for  slave,  and  the  like.  In  some  words, 
both  the  masc.  and  fem.  forms  are  employed  in  the  same  sense, 
as  Aga  and  Agaih,  signifying  defender,  reprover,  etc.  The 
general  principle  receives  confirmation  from  other  languages. 
Homer  calls  Oceanus  Sewv  yeVeo-is,  II.  xiv.  201,  302.  Euripides 
puts  ayciAovevfxa  (government)  for  f)yefxwv,  governor,  Phoen.  1492  ; 
and  vv/Afavixa  (espousal)  for  vvp.<j)r),  bride,  Troad.  435.  So  in 
all  the  modern  languages  of  Europe,  we  find  such  words  as  maj- 
esty, excellency,  highness,  honor,  grace,  magnificence  (all  fem- 
inines  and  abstracts),  designating  persons  of  a  particular  rank  or 
office.  Even  we  republicans  call  our  governor  His  Excellency. 
It  need  not,  and  should  not,  seem  strange  to  us,  then,  when  we 
find  the  word  tfc&p  employed  to  designate  preacher. 

But  what  means  preacher?  The  root  or  stem-word,  bttg, 
means  to  assemble,  to  summon  together  ;  but  it  is  spoken  only  in 
reference  to  persons.  Mostly,  it  designates  summoning  them 
together  for  religious  purposes  ;  and  the  assembly  thus  brought 
together  is  called  brt£,  and  the  discourse  rt^tTjD.  Hitzig  says 
(Comm.  Ecc.  1:1)  that  "  tbrp  cannot  possibly  mean  preaching 
in  the  abstract;"  to  which  (omitting  the  word  possibly)  I  should 
fully  assent.  But  preaching  as  an  act  it  may  mean,  by  a  little 
deflection  from  its  ordinary  sense.  The  Latin  concionatrix,  by 
which  it  has  often  been  translated,  and  the  barbarous  Greek 
word  iKK\7](Tia.o-Tpia,  in  the  Venet.  Graec,  are  attempts  to  give 


130  ECCLESIASTES    I.  1. 

the  exact  shade  of  the  literal  meaning ;  and  in  theory  they  are 
correct  translations.  Those  who  thus  translate,  however,  refer 
the  word  (as  fern.)  to  wisdom  as  the  preacher.  That  the  dis- 
course in  the  present  case  (^^O  is  not  like  a  modern  sermon  is 
sufficiently  plain.  Equally  plain  is  it,  that  what  is  said  is  not 
supposed  to  be  addressed  to  a  mass  of  men  assembled.  Nearly 
always  the  person  addressed  is  of  the  singular  number ;  e.  g., 
"Keep  thy  foot,  when  thou  goest  to  the  house  of  God;"  " Rejoice, 
O  young  man,  in  thy  youth,  etc."  But  still,  as  the  book  is 
designed  for  general  reading,  and  the  writer  often  warns,  re- 
proves, and  instructs,  he  might  not  unaptly  call  himself  preacher. 
So  far  as  Solomon  is  concerned,  we  know  only  of  one  occasion 
on  which  he  addressed  the  great  ^fijD ,  viz.,  at  the  dedication  of 
the  temple,  2  Chron.  6  :  1  seq.  His  proverbs,  and  songs,  and 
botanical  and  zoological  treatises,  are  mentioned  in  2  K.  4  :  30 
seq. ;  but  nothing  is  said  of  his  preaching.  The  name,  Thrip , 
was  not  given  subsequently  to  the  author  because  of  his  writing 
the  book  so  called,  but  he  had  the  name  already  when  the  book 
was  beginning  to  be  written,  Ecc.  1:1.  If  Solomon  himself 
wrote  the  book,  we  can  hardly  make  out  a  reason  why  he  should 
style  himself  Coheleth  ;  but  if  (as  seems  to  be  nearly  certain) 
it  was  written  at  a  later  period  (see  §  5.  Introd.),  and  Solomon's 
views  and  feelings  were  presented  by  the  writer  to  the  considera- 
tion of  the  reader,  it  was  natural  enough  for  the  writer  to  call 
him  Coheleth,  in  reference  to  what  he  had  uttered.  At  any  rate, 
the  Sept.  Greek  iKKXeanaa-T^,  Jerome's  Latin  Goncionator% 
Luther's  Prediger.ns  well  as  our  English  Preacher,  are  generally 
acquiesced  in,  at  present,  as  the  appropriate  meaning  of  the 
word.  That  the  meaning  is  masc.  is  clear  from  the  fact  that  in 
.-ill  cases  lli<*  masc.  verb  is  associated  with  it;  for  7  :  27,  PVTC8 
tbtfp  is  no  exception,  since  it  should  be  read  rb-pn  Toa,  as  it  is 
in  \'l  :  8.  That  Coheleth  himself  is  represented  as  a  king,  is 
clear  from  1  :  12. 

The  various,  and  sometimes  even  whimsical,  meanings  given 


ECCLESIASTES    I.   1.  131 

to  tliis  word,  need  not  be  formally  discussed  and  refuted.  Such 
is  collector,  viz.,  of  sayings  and  maxims;  whereas  ^i"-  means 
only  to  collect  men.  Then  we  have  assembly,  academy,  i.  e.,  a 
literary  consessus  ;  which  meaning  is  defended  by  men  of  name, 
as  Doderlein,  Paulus,  Bauer,  Bertholdt,  llartmann,  and  others. 
But  1  :  12  decides  this  matter;  for  according  to  this  exposition, 
Solomon  is  made  gravely  to  address  his  consessus,  by  saying : 
"  I,  O  Academy,  was  king  in  Jerusalem."  Did  they  need  to  be 
told  this  ?  And  then,  was  king  —  when  ?  Solomon  was  king  to 
the  end  of  his  life,  and  could  never  tell  them  he  ivas  once  kin--, 
which  would  imply  of  course  that  he  is  now  no  longer  so.  Next 
comes  senex,  the  old  man,  from  the  corresponding  Arabic  verb, 
which,  among  other  things,  signifies  to  groiv  gray.  But  why  go 
to  the  Arabic  in  this  case ;  above  all,  why  go  there,  when  we  can 
find  in  senex  nothing  specially  appropriate  to  the  book  ?  Once 
more,  from  the  Arabic  bnp,  in  the  sense  of  exaruit  cutis,  is  the 
word  derived,  and  so  Coheleth  means  the  penitent,  who  becomes 
withered  in  skin  by  doing  penance !  Zirkel  and  others  assert, 
however,  that  the  fern,  ending  is  given  by  Solomon  to  Coheleth, 
in  order  that  it  might  mark  gentleness  and  gracefulness  in  his 
speech  (like  Voltaire  substituted  for  Arouet).  Others  say  it 
sprung  from  the  effeminacy  of  Solomon  in  his  old  age ;  others, 
that  Solomon's  ghost  is  the  speaker,  and  that  the  fern,  ending  is 
given  to  show  that  ghosts  have  no  specific  gender  (comp.  Matt. 
22  :  30).  This  last  phantasy  comes  from  Augusti,  Einl.  s.  242, 
f.  Jahn  holds  the  n"  final  to  be*  an  auxesis  to  the  force  of  the 
word;  for  the  like  is  often  the  case  in  Arabic.  But  such  an 
avtjrjo-Ls,  if  admitted,  would  strictly  mean  preaching  much,  not 
preeminent  preacher.  But  enough.  We  have  no  need  of 
guessing,  in  the  present  case.  That  Coheleth  means  one  who 
addresses  serious  discourse  to  his  hearers,  or  rather  to  his  readers, 
is  sufficiently  plain.  This,  too,  is  in  accordance  with  the  nature 
of  the  book,  and  with  the  character  of  the  author.  Happily,  we 
are  not  often  called  upon,  at  the  present  time,  to  notice  and  con- 


132  ECCLESIASTES    I.  2. 

tend  against  such  phantasies  as  have  just  been  brought  to  view. 
Their  existence  shows  how  unsafe  and  adventurous  it  is  to  for> 
sake  the  simple  principle  of  grammatico-historical  interpretation. 
Son  of  David  would  not  particularize  enough  for  the  writer's 
purpose,  for  David  had  many  sons.  Therefore  he  adds  :  King  in 
Jerusalem  ;  which  words  belong  to  David's  son,  and  not  to  him, 
for  they  are  epexegetical  of  Son  of  David.  But  why  King  in 
Jerusalem  ?  Solomon  himself,  if  he  wrote  the  book,  would  natu- 
rally say  :  King  of  Israel  But  in  after  times,  when  there  were 
kings  over  the  ten  tribes  of  Israel,  who  were  of  a  separate  race, 
and  had  a  different  capital  (Samaria),  it  would  be  natural  to 
speak  of  a  Heb.  king  either  as  belonging  to  Jerusalem,  or  else  to 
Samaria,  in  order  to  distinguish  accurately.  That  the  writer  of 
the  book  has  here  spoken  in  the  usual  manner  which  prevailed  at 
a  period  later  than  that  of  Solomon,  seems  plain.  And  as  only 
one  of  David's  sons  ever  reigned  at  Jerusalem,  Solomon  is  of 
course  meant  here. 

(2)  Vanity  of  vanities,  saith  the  preacher,  vanity  of  vanities!     All  is 

vanity. 

Here  the  main  subject  of  the  book  is  at  once  announced.  Van- 
ity of  vanities  !  An  exclamation,  and  not  a  part  of  an  ordinary 
complete  sentence.  The  word  bzin  is  one  of  the  older  Segholates, 
retaining  its  original  Inf.  form.  In  Hebrew  this  is  rare,  the  com- 
mon Segholates  (such  as  bzif)  being  substituted  for  such  forms ; 
Heb.  Gramm.  §  83,  II.  10.1  Like  to  ^qr,  are  1W,  "n«Q,  etc  ;  but 
in  Syr.  and  Chald.  such  forms  are  the  usual  Segholates.  The 
unusual  form  in  Hebrew  seems  to  be  chosen  here  for  the  sake  of 
variety  in  diction,  inasmuch  as  the  plur.  tpbnrr  comes  from  the 
usual  bzn.  The  root  Vsri  means  to  breathe ;  hence  Sort,  breath, 
then  vapor,  and  lastly,  in  a  tropical  sense,  nothingness,  vanity,  i.  e., 

1  The  Grammar  referred  to,  where  no  title  is  given,  is  Roediger's  edition 
of  Ge^eniui's  Heb.  Grammar,  translated  by  M.  Stuart. 


ECCLESIASTES    I.  3.  133 

that  which  is  altogether  momentary  and  unsubstantial.  The 
meaning  of  the  whole  phrase  is  most  absolute,  or  extreme  vanity  ; 
see  Gramm.  §  117,  2.  In  nbn'p  tbm  we  see  that  the  noun  is  used 
as  a  masculine.  The  repetition  of  vanity  of  vanities  gives  the 
highest  intensity  possible  to  the  idea  expressed.  The  extent  of 
its  application  next  follows. 

Vsn  must  not  be  regarded  here  as  =  the  Greek  to  irav,  the 
universe,  as  Rosenm.  and  others  affirm;  but  it  includes  all  the 
efforts  of  men  and  all  which  befalls  them.  In  other  words,  it 
includes  all  that  is  done  or  happens  under  the  sun,  as  the  book 
everywhere  expresses  it,  see  vs.  3,  9,  14;  2  :  14,  17 — 20,  etc., 
passim.  Neither  divine  operations,  nor  the  great  objects  of 
nature,  are  asserted  to  be  vanity.  In  respect  to  the  work  of  God, 
the  author  never  criticizes  this,  nor  finds  it  to  be  defective.  It  is 
the  doings,  purposes,  designs,  wishes,  and  strivings  of  men,  which 
he  pronounces  to  be  vanity,  because  all  these  never  secure  solid 
and  permanent  happiness.  The  article  is  prefixed  to  Vs,  because 
it  comprises  a  universality  of  efforts  and  events,  a  tout  ensemble  ; 
and  so  it  corresponds  with  the  Greek  article  before  7ra?  in  a  like 
case.  —  bnn  for  ban,  because  of  the  pause-accent,  Gramm.  §  29, 
4.  In  this  last  clause  the  copula  (iTjrt)'  between  subject  and 
predicate  is,  as  usual  in  such  cases,  omitted ;  Gr.  §  141. 

(3)  What  profit  is  there  to  man  by  all  his  toil,  which  he  laboriously  per- 
formeth  under  the  sun  1 

The  question  virtually  contains  the  strongest  kind  of  affirma- 
tion that  there  is  no  profit.  In  other  words,  it  challenges  all  men 
to  show  that  there  is  any  profit.  And  if  none,  then  all  is  vanity 
indeed.  This  verse  also  shows  the  extent  of  the  ground  which 
bin  of  the  preceding  verse  is  designed  to  cover.  For  Tvq  followed 
by  a  Dagh.  conjunctive,  see  Lex.  Tro ,  Note  (b.)  at  the  close.  — 
■)"hrP ,  from  the  root  ""irn ,  means  literally  remainder,  what  remains, 
and  then  secondarily  gain,  profit.  — finxb,  with  the  article-vowel 

under  b,  §  35,  B.  b.  Note  2  and  §  35,  1.     Here  again  the  article 

12 


134  ECCLESIASTES    I.  3. 

makes  the  word  denote  the  whole  race  of  men,  the  genus  huma- 
mim,\ike  our  word  mankind.     It  is  the  Dat.  of  appurtenance ; 

the  copula  being  omitted,  as  usual.  Or  we  may  call  it  a  case  of 
the  Gen.  made  by  prefixing  b,  Gr.  §  113,  2.  In  all  his  toil  is  a 
literal  rendering  of  l^ozHbaa ,  but  the  true  sense  of  a  here  is  by, 
on  account  of,  or  in  respect  to,  Lex.  a,  B.  10.  The  usual  mean- 
ing of  in  would  hardly  make  an  intelligible  sense  here.  The 
suff.  i ,  appended  to  bos> ,  refers  to  a1?:* ,  which  is  in  the  sing, 
number ;  but  as  the  latter  noun  is  generic,  so  also  must  the  sufF. 
be. 

In  bbSJJti  j  the  common  abridged  form  of  "ittSJSS ,  "O  is  combined 
with  the  verb.  The  x  of  the  pronoun  is  dropped,  because  of  its 
feeble  sound,  and  the  n  assimilates  to  the  letter  which  follows  it, 
and  is  expressed  by  a  Dagh.  forte  in  that  letter.  No  book  in  the 
Heb.  Scriptures  makes  such  a  use  of  this  abridged  form,  or  employs 
it  with  anything  of  the  like  frequency,  as  Coheleth.  Early  cases 
of  its  use  are  rare,  and  mostly  somewhat  doubtful.  It  is  found 
mainly  in  Ecc,  Cant.,  and  some  of  the  later  Psalms.  Its  fre- 
quency in  Coheleth  even  reminds  one  of  the  Rabbinic,  and  is  one 
of  the  distinctive  characteristics  of  the  peculiar  diction  of  the 
book.  The  imperf.,  as  Vtflp,  designates  continued,  repeated,  cus- 
tomary action  more  frequently  than  any  other  tense;  Gr.  §  125, 
4,  6.  The  Heb.  much  oftener  than  our  own  language,  puts  a 
kindred  noun  after  a  verb  to  render  the  expression  energetic. 
We  can  say  rim  a  race,  fight  a  good  fight,  etc.,  but  our  limits  are 
narrow  as  to  this  kind  of  diction.  On  the  contrary,  the  Hebrew 
extends  this  mode  of  expression  very  widely ;  as  bftS  te' ,  nbn 
ibn,  ti'sv  aup,  etc.  To  avoid  saying  (as  the  Heb.  does)  toiled  a 
toil,  I  have  translated  ad  sensum  by  toil  which  he  laboriously  per- 
formeth  ;  see  Gr.  §  135,  n.  1. 

I  'mlcr  the  sun  occurs  only  in  Coheleth  ;  but  here  it  is  repeated 
some  twenty-five  times,  and  constitutes  a  marked  peculiarity  of 
the  book.  (Sec  p.  l  1  for  a  lisl  of  the  cases.)  We  convey  the 
same  idea  by  calling  things  sublunary  =.  under  the  moon.     The 


ECCLESIASTES    1.4,5.  105 

Heb.  expression  is  more  striking  than  ours.  Earthly  or  worldly 
purposes,  actions,  and  events  are  designated  by  assigning  this 
predicate  to  them.  —  WO  for  u;?2d,  because  of  the  pause-accent. 

(4)   [One]   generation  passeth  away,  and  [another]  generation  cometh  : 
and  the  earth  abideth  forever. 

The  Heb.  *tto,  without  the  article,  is  equivalent  to  a  generation, 

or  one  generation.     The  latter  is  the  preferable  English  here. 

T|^n  is  often  used  to  designate  departure,  go big  away;  and  xa 
(Part,  here)  means  coming  in  the  sense  of  entering  upon  the 
scene  of  action.  This  going  and  coming  shows  the  brevity  and 
vanity  of  human  life  ;  since  there  is  nothing  permanent  or  en- 
during in  man  ;  and  confirms  the  preceding  verse,  which  denies 
that  man  has  any  solid  and  lasting  good  or  reward  in  the  present 
world.  On  the  other  hand,  the  earth  abideth  forever.  The  mean- 
ing he^re  given  to  rTroS  (Qamets  before  pause)  is  by  no  means 
unusual ;  see  Lex.  s.  v.  No.  2.  All  three  of  the  participles  here 
employed  are  designedly  used  to  express  continuance  of  action. 
The  sentiment  is,  that  the  earth  is  fixed  and  immutable,  admit- 
ting no  changes  for  the  better,  and,  consequently,  no  hopes  of 
lightening  human  misery  by  such  changes.  Man's  condition  in 
the  world,  and  his  relation  to  it,  must  ever  remain  the  same. 
His  frailty  in  himself  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the  other  the  fore- 
closure against  any  change  for  the  better  in  the  things  without, 
concur  to  show  that  he  can  find  no  permanent  happiness  here. 
Vs.  3  and  4  fall  back  upon,  or  stand  related  to,  the  assertion  in 
v.  2,  that  "  all  is  vanity." 

(5)  And  the  sun  riseth,  and  the  sun  setteth,  and  to  its  place  it  hasteneth, 
where  it  ariseth. 

Here  K2  (verb)  is  employed  in  a  sense  apparently  the  oppo- 
site of  that  in  the  verse  above.  The  simple  fact  is,  that  occasion- 
ally the  verb  Xia,  whose  usual  meaning  isintrare,ingredi\  is  also 
employed  in  the  general  sense  of  ire,  viz.,  to  go  or  move  forward 


136  ECCLESIASTES    I.  6. 

in  any  direction  ;  see  Lex.  Exactly  to  our  purpose,  is  its  mean- 
ing in  Gen.  15  :  12.  Perhaps  (with  Knobel)  we  may  attribute 
its  use  here,  to  an  associated  idea  that  the  setting  sun  enters  (in- 
greditur)  its  subterraneous  dwelling,  viz.,  the  ocean,  according  to 
the  view  of  the  Hebrews.  The  greater  distinctive  accent  on 
■Bh'pn  is  not  well  placed;  for  this  word  is  intimately  connected 
with  Eprfti .  This  last  word  literally  means  to  pant,  e.  g.,  as  one 
does  in  consequence  of  running  swiftly.  Figuratively  it  is  attrib- 
uted to  the  sun,  in  his  race  from  the  place  of  setting  to  that  of 
rising,  in  order  that  he  may  be  ready  to  rise  again  the  next 
morning.  I  have  given  in  my  version  the  real  meaning  which 
the  word  is  designed  here  to  express,  viz.,  hasteneth  instead  of 
panteth.  The  imagery  is  vivid.  The  sun  must  make  great  haste 
(which  occasions  panting),  in  order  to  return,  in  a  few  hours,  to 
the  place  from  which  it  arose.  In  what  way  the  ancient  Hebrews 
conceived  this  return  to  be  accomplished,  whether  by  going  round 
the  world,  or  under  it,  we  are  unable  to  say.  In  the  Targum  on 
this  verse  (6th  century),  it  is  said,  that '  the  sun  goes  round  by 
the  side  of  the  north,  in  the  path  of  the  abyss.'  But  in  the  Heb. 
Scriptures  I  can  recall  no  passage  which  seems  to  designate  the 
common  views  of  the  ancient  Hebrews  on  this  subject.  It  must 
have  appeared  very  mysterious  to  a  thinking  man  among  them. 
Where  it  ariseth,  or  will  arise.  As  habitual  action  is  here  im- 
plied, the  former  is  the  preferable  version.  The  clause  is  rela- 
tive, and  ^rx  is  implied  before  rnit ,  and  therefore  modifies  n& , 
making  it  to  mean  where,  Gramm.  §121,3,  comp.  1.  The  present 
tense  is  formed  most  frequently  of  all,  in  this  book,  by  the  Part. 
pres.,  which  has  often  an  accompanying  pronoun,  as  here,  SOS",  rnit. 

(6)  The  wind  gocth  to  the  south,  and  turncth  about  to  the  north,  turning 
and  turning  it  goetli,  and  to  its  circuits  doth  the  wind  return. 

The  Heb.  order  of  words  we  cannot  well  follow  here ;  for  we 
must  then  translate:  It  goeth  to  the  south, and turneth  about  to  the 


ECCLESIASTES    I.    7.  137 

north,  turning  turning  goeth  the  wind.  The  Part.  ^in  does  not 
here  indicate  departure,  as  in  v.  4,  but  progredie?is,  progressing  in 
any  direction.  Turnclh  about,  or  circuiteth,  implies  a  moving  of 
the  wind  through  the  intermediate  points,  from  the  south  round 
to  the  north.  But  why  these  two  points  rather  than  east  and 
west?  Evidently  because  the  sun's  rising  and  setting  in  the  east 
and  west  had  already  brought  them  to  view,  and  the  writer  did 
not  wish  to  repeat  the  same  points.  There  are  six  participles  in 
this  verse,  all  indicative  of  continued  successive  action.  —  tyn  is 
here  employed  as  masc. ;  and  so  in  Ex.  10  :  13 ;  Ps.  51  :  12  ; 
1  K.  19  :  11.  It  is  fern,  elsewhere.  Win  =  6  au/e/zos,  the  wind. 
The  repetition  of  Mid  gives  intensity  to  the  description  of  the 
turning,  representing  it  as  occurring  in  constant  succession. 

The  wind  retumeth  to  its  circuits,  i.  e.,  it  turns  until  it  reaches 
the  point  from  which  it  started,  and  then  goes  again  upon  the 
like  circuits.  In  other  words,  the  same  thing  is  repeated  over 
and  over  again  continually. 

(7)  All  the  streams  go  to  the  sea,  but  the  sea  is  not  full;  to  the  place 
where  the  streams  go,  thither  do  they  again  return. 

bi^W,  not  specifically  rivers,  but  running  or  flowing  water  in 
streams  large  or  small.  Statistically  accurate  we  need  not  re- 
quire the  writer  to  be ;  for  many  brooks  are  lost  in  the  sand,  or 
flow  into  the  Jordan  ;  and  even  the  Jordan  itself  flows  into  the 
lake  of  Sodom.  But  in  Hebrew,  a  lake  is  called  a  sea.  The 
usual  fact  as  to  the  course  of  rivers,  is  enough  for  the  writer's 
purpose.  Howthe  rivers  get  back  to  their  sources  again,  so  as 
to  repeat  the  flowing  into  the  sea,  the  writer  does  not  intimate  ; 
even  as  before,  he  does  not  tell  us  how  the  sun  gets  back  to  his 
place  of  rising.  Probably  underground  channels  were  supposed 
to  exist;  comp.  Gen.  7:11,  where  the  fountains  of  the  great 
deep  are  said  to  be  unstopped,  in  order  to  overflow  the  earth. 
The  fact  that  rain  is  formed  by  evaporation  from  the  sea  (by 

12* 


133  ECCLESIASTES    I.  8. 

which  the  sea  parts  with  as  much  as  it  receives  and  so  is  never 
full),  seems  hardly  to  have  been  known  to  the  Hebrews,  at  least 
in  any  such  way  as  we  now  understand  the  matter ;  although 
there  is  something  like  to  this  in  the  earth-ivatering  mist  of  Gen. 
2  :  G.  —  *S3i8  is  the  negative  of  the  verb  to  be,  combined  with 
RYl,  see  Lex.  "pa  with  the  remarks  on  the  suffixes.  The  nega- 
tive before  a  def.  verb  would  be  xb  ;  before  a  Part,  it  is  "pS .  — 
dipa  const,  form  before  B  =  1»»,  Gr.  §  114,  2.  The  article  * , 
being  a  Guttural,  does  not  admit  the  Dagh.  forte  that  would 
normally  follow  ttJ .  —  fi'j  is  rightly  connected  by  the  accent  with 
the  clause  that  follows  it,  and  means  there  or  (as  we  say  in  such 
a  case)  thither. — taenia  Part.,  lit.  returning,  but  it  is  here  em- 
ployed in  the  sense  of  again  or  repetition  ;  see  Lex.  We  might 
literally  translate :  thither  they  repeat  to  go.  For  b ,  i.  e.,  this 
prefix  with  Qamets  before  the  fern.  Inf.  rzb  (root  7&),  see  Lex. 
b .  The  other  Qamets,  belonging  to  the  verb,  arises  from  the 
pause,  §  29,  4. 

(8)  All  words  grow  weary,  no  man  can  utter  [them] ;  the  eye  is  not  satis- 
fied with  seeing,  nor  the  ear  filled  so  that  it  cannot  hear. 

The  Part,  BKp3J  belongs  to  an  intransitive  verb,  and  we  may 
translate  grow  weary  or  are  wearied,  since  yj£  is  both  act.  and 
passive  as  to  its  form.  The  language  is  clearly  tropical,  but  the 
meaning  is  plain,  viz.,  that  language  would  fail  to  tell  the  whole, 
or  to  tell  it  would  weary  out  language.  So  the  clause  that  fol- 
lows, which  affirms  that  no  one  can  utter  all  the  words  necessary 
to  tell  the  whole  story.  The  article  stands  before  ti^TS^ ,  in  order 
to  show  that  the  words  or  descriptions  in  question  have  relation 
to  such  things  as  are  mentioned  in  vs.  4 — 7,  =  all  words  neces- 
sary to  relate  all  such  things.  —  tesp,  the  Imperf.  Hoph.  of  bb* , 
lit.  shall  be  made  able,  is  in  common  use  for  Kal,  which  is  unem- 
ployed in  this  verb.  In  K'IS'lb  the  b  may  be  rendered  to,  or  in 
respect  to.     I  have  adopted  our  more  familiar  phraseology  — 


ECCLESIASTES    I.  9,  10.  139 

satisfied  ivith  seeing. — Nor  the  car  be  filled  so  that  it  cannot  hear. 
The  12  before  the  Inf.  has  usually  a  negative  meaning  (see  Lex. 
■)«,  5,  c),  i.  e.,  lit.  it  means  from,  away  from,  any  thing  or  action, 
and  so  a  negation  of  it.  The  last  two  clauses  are  evidently  a 
commentary  on  the  two  preceding,  designed  to  illustrate  and  con- 
firm them.  The  eye  is  satisfied,  only  when  it  has  seen  all  that 
is  to  be  seen.  But  this  can  never  happen,  for  the  things  that 
might  be  seen  are  at  any  time  more  than  words  can  tell.  So 
with  the  ear.  It  can  never  be  filled,  so  that  there  is  not  more 
which  might  be  told  and  heard.  Hence  §frttfta ,  ita  ut  non  audiat. 
Both  of  these  cases  show  that  the  number  of  occurrences  and 
events  is  so  great,  that  it  is  beyond  the  power  of  eye  or  ear  to 
see  or  hear  of  all.  They  are,  as  asserted  above,  more  than  words 
can  describe. 

(9)  That  which  has  been  is  that  which  shall  be,  and  that  which  has  been 
done  is  that  which  shall  be  done,  and  there  is  nothing  new  under  the  sun. 

For  VS-riTa ,  id  quod,  see  Lex.  tva ,  2.  This  word  loses  its  in- 
terrogative power,  when  combined  (as  here)  with  another  word. 
}"nn ,  has  occurred,  or  taken  place,  accidit,  like  yivo/xai.  —  ann 
involves  the  copula  is,  and  may  therefore  be  literally  translated 
is  that,  oris  the  same;  Gr.  119,  2.  —  ftto,  verb  Niph.  The 
Part,  of  this  same  form  would  be  fern.,  and  so  not  accordant  with 
the  masc.  «*in  .  —  nfcsn ,  Imperf.  Niph.,  Gr.  §  62,  4.  —  For  f»  , 
the  const,  form  of  "pa ,  see  in  Lex.  —  ?3  with  short  o,  because  of 
the  Maqqeph.  The  first  clause  of  the  verse  refers  to  things 
which  happen,  occurrences ;  the  second  to  things  which  are  done, 
actions.     Of  these  it  is  said :  "  There  is  nothing  new." 

(10)  Is  there  anything  of  which  one  may  say:  See,  this  is  new?  Long 
ago  was  it,  in  ancient  times  which  were  before  us. 

Wj,  matter,  thing ;  as  often  elsewhere;  Lex.  3.  The  ^  im- 
plies a  preposition  before  it,  S  or  b,  concerning  or  in  regard  to, 
Gr.  §  152,  3,  -raso  has  no  subject  expressed,  and  has  therefore 


HO  ECCLESIASTES    I.  11. 

an  indef.  Nom.  one,  any  one.  —  KJisn  simply  is,  see  Gr.  §  119,  2, 
and  Lex.  — 133,  frequent  in  Syriac,but  peculiar  to  Ecc.in  the  He- 
brew. Hitzig  lias  best  illustrated  it  by  the  Arabic  J&  (—  Mzs) 
which  means  extreme  old  age.  Knobel  doubts  such  a  meaning 
of  the  Hebrew,  but  without  good  reason.  At  any  rate,  it  fits  the 
passage  well.  That  OTbbs*  often  means  ancient  times,  days  of  yore, 
the  Lex.  will  show,  b  before  it,  in  such  a  case,  is  not  unfrequent, 
for  this  preposition  is  often  prefixed  to  a  word  designating  time. 
Gr.  151,  3,  e.  The  verb  rnrr,  which  follows,  is  sing.,  while  its 
antecedent  subject  is  plural.  But  like  cases  occur  in  respect  to 
this  verb  and  some  others ;  see  in  Ecc.  2:7;  Gen.  35  :  26  ;  47 :  24 ; 
1  Chron.  2:9;  3:1.  Similar  anomalies  of  TT'n  in  respect  to 
gender  also  occur;  comp.  Ex.  12  :  49  ;  Gen.  15  :  17.  In  fact, 
then,  STtt  seems  to  be  occasionally  used  in  a  kind  of  impersonal 
way,  so  that  the  sing,  number  may  be  employed,  even  if  the 
noun  to  which  the  verb  stands  related  is  in  the  plural.  It  may 
be,  too,  that  *im  (in  the  present  case),  having  a  sing,  form,  even 
when  a  plur.  is  designated  by  it  (as  here),  may  take  after  it  a 
verb  of  the  like  form.  Ewald  translates  thus :  what  happens 
before  our  eyes,  making  this  clause  the  subject  or  Nom.  to  *Q3 
Svn .  But  this  would  require  toSBb ,  and  not  admit  of  W&^s , 
which  means  from  [the  time]  before  us  ;  see  Is.  41  :  26. 

The  bearing  of  vs.  9,  10,  on  what  precedes,  is  plain.  The 
writer  had  said  that  everything  moved  on  in  one  perpetual  circle 
of  repetition,  the  same  things  always  occurring  over  and  over 
again.  Here  he  confirms  his  assertion,  by  challenging  any  one 
to  point  out  a  single  thing  which  is  actually  new,  i.  e.,  which  is 
an  exception  to  what  he  affirms.  Long  ago  did  everything  hap- 
pen which  now  happens ;  therefore,  there  is  one  unvarying  round 
of  occurrences. 

(11)  Tiiere  is  no  remembrance  of  former  things;  and  also  in  respect  to 
after  things  which  are  to  come,  there  will  be  no  remembrance  of  them  among 
those  who  will  exist  thereafter. 


ECCLESIASTICS    I.   11.  141 

This  verse  assigns  the  reason  why  some  err  in  supposing  that 
something  new  takes  place.  Former  occurrences  are  forgotten  ; 
and,  not  recognizing  this,  some  suppose  that  things  happen  which 
are  really  new.  This  will  be  equally  true  of  things  yet  to  come. 
Those  who  succeed  the  next  generation  will,  in  like  manner,  for- 
get what  preceded  them.  Consequently,  there  can  be  no  proof 
that  any  new  thing  actually  takes  place. 

The  word  "p-DT  (from  "p'-ST )  is  in  the  const,  form ;  and  it  may 
be  so,  notwithstanding  the  b  that  follows ;  Gr.  §  114,  1.  But  not 
improbably  the  apparent  const,  form  here  may,  in  reality,  be  ab- 
solute, like  'j'hrP ,  ThvflB ,  etc.,  as  some  nouns,  we  well  know,  have 
more  than  one  absolute  form.  In  tfQthfib ,  the  b  has  the  article- 
vowel,  and  the  article  is  employed  before  a  word  designating  an 
entire  totality.  Lit.  the  word  means  primus,  first ;  but  by  usage 
(since  there  is  no  compar.  form  for  adjectives  in  Heb.),  it  means 
former,  antecedent,  viz.,  former  occurrences  and  actions.  The 
same  is  true  of  dW»b,  which  is  generic,  and  designates  all 
that  will  occur  or  be  done  thereafter.  Of  course  the  article  may 
be  used  before  it,  as  it  is  in  h .  —  dS> ,  with,  but  also  as  apud, 
among,  which  is  the  better  sense  here. 

§  2.  Efforts  to  obtain  Happiness  by  the  Acquisition  of  Wisdom. 

[We  have  seen  that  §  1  contains  an  introduction,  by  proposing  the  theme, 
and  pointing  out  the  general  sources  whence  the  proof  of  that  theme  will  be 
drawn,  viz.,  from  the  brevity  and  vanity  of  human  life,  and  the  immutable 
and  ever-recurring  round  of  phenomena  in  the  world  about  us  and  above 
us.  A  divine  Omnipotent  hand  has  enstampcd  these  characters  on  every- 
thing ;  and  man,  who  is  miserable  now,  cannot  indulge  any  hope  of  bettering 
his  condition  by  changes  made  in  the  order  and  influence  of  natural  phenom- 
ena Having  thus  introduced  his  reader  to  the  outlines  of  his  theme,  the 
author  proceeds  to  tell  us  who  he  is.  and  what  experiments  he  has  made  in 
order  to  discover  the  secret  of  human  happiness  in  the  present  world.  His 
experience  is  very  diversified  ;  and  he  shows  us  that,  in  whatever  way  he 
turned  himself,  he  was  always  forced  at  last  to  the  same  conclusion,  viz., 

that  ALL    IS    VANITY,] 


142  ECCLESIASTES    I.   12. 


Chap.  I.  12—18. 

(12)  I,  Coheleth,  was  King  over  Israel  in  Jerusalem. 

If,  as  Hitzig  intimates  (Vorbemerk.  §  3),  Coheleth  be  Wisdom 
incarnate  in  Solomon,  and  thus  personified,  how  could  the  writer 
speak  as  he  does  here  ?  In  Prov.  viii.  and  in  the  book  of  Wis- 
dom, the  personification  of  Wisdom  is  made  plain  and  palpable 
to  the  reader.  But  here  we  have  a  personage,  who  is  king  over 
a  particular  people,  and  in  a  definite  city.  The  designations  in 
v.  12  would,  indeed,  seem  very  strange  in  the  mouth  of  Solomon, 
on  the  supposition  that  he,  in  person,  is  addressing  his  contem- 
poraries. Did  they  need  to  be  told  that  he  lived  at  Jerusalem  ? 
Above  all,  those  who  think  Coheleth  means  a  literary  academy, 
or  consessus,  are  forced  to  an  almost  ridiculous  translation  here. 
So  Doderlein :  "  I,  O  academy,  was  king,  etc."  The  language 
seems  to  be  explicable  only  on  the  ground  that  the  book  was 
composed  when  the  nation  had  been  divided,  and  there  were  two 
kings  and  two  capitals  in  Palestine.  Israel  is  a  name  applicable 
to  the  whole  nation,  or  to  the  ten  tribes,  or,  finally,  to  the  two 
tribes  of  Judah  and  Benjamin.  Here  it  has  the  latter  meaning. 
The  emphasis  laid  on  was,  by  expressly  inserting  the  verb  T^ii, 
shows  that  the  day  had  passed  by  when  Coheleth  was  king. 
This  was  not  the  case  with  Solomon  while  he  lived,  for  he  was 
king  to  the  time  of  his  death;  and  therefore  he  could  not  speak 
of  himself  as  a  past1  king.  The  plural  (or  dual)  form  of  d^l»*l'"n 
probably  took  its  rise  from  the  upper  and  lower  parts  of  the  city; 
like  d^ispa ,  the  two  Mitzars,  or  Egypt,  upper  and  lower. 

But  why  does  the  writer  bring  this  to  view?  Plainly  because 
that  wisdom,  the  first  special  and  individual  topic  of  discussion, 
belonged  preeminently  to  Solomon.  If  any  one  could  find  hap- 
piness in  the  pursuit  of  it,  he  surely  was  the  man. 

1  Too  much  Btre  b  seems  to  as  to  be  laid  on  this  form  of  the  verb,  both 
here  and  in  the  [ntrod.,  §  5,  p.  68,  where  see  note.  —  Ed. 


ECCLESIASTES    I.  13.  143 

(13)  And  I  gave  my  mind  to  seek  out  and  make  careful  investigation,  by 
wisdom,  concerning  all  which  is  done  under  heaven  ;  this  is  an  unhappy  em- 
ployment which  God  has  given  to  the  sous  of  men,  to  occupy  themselves 
therewith. 

The  verb  ttSiTl  means  to  seek  after,  to  seek  out.  11PI  means 
more  than  this,  viz.,  it  literally  signifies  to  go  round  and  round 
a  thing,  in  order  elosely  to  inspect  it ;  hence  it  means,  in  its 
secondary  sense,  to  investigate  carefully  and  closely.  The  first 
verb  designates  looking  up  the  object,  the  second  means  carefully 
prying  into  it  and  minutely  examining  it.  The  a  (prep.)  marks 
the  instrumentality  employed,  or  the  manner  in  which  the  inves- 
tigation was  conducted.  The  Pattah  under  it  is  the  article- 
vowel  ;  and  rightly  does  it  stand  here,  for  i"ra3fiir!  means  the  ivis- 
dom  requisite  or  appropriate  to  such  an  investigation.  EverytJdng 
which  is  done,  refers  to  the,  actions  of  men,  and  not  the  objects  of 
nature ;  for  he  could  not  well  say  of  them  what  he  affirms  in  v. 
14,  viz.,  that  they  were  all  vanity  and  an  empty  affair.  Their 
immutable  order  and  ever-recurring  and  uniform  phenomena, 
however,  render  them  incapable  of  control  by  man,  as  vs.  4 — 8 
show  ;  and  therefore  they  are  incapable  of  being  so  used  by  him 
as  to  prevent  all  his  inconveniences  and  sufferings.  Yet  the 
things  in  themselves  are  beautiful  and  good,  as  3  :  11  declares. 
It  is  the  vanity  of  human  effort  after  knowledge,  i.  e.,  such 
knowledge  as  will  secure  and  render  stable  our  present  happi- 
ness, which  the  writer  is  going  to  discuss.  He  declares  at  the 
outset  that  this  employment  is  an  unhappy  one,  although  Provi- 
dence has  seen  fit  to  discipline  men  thereby. 

Mil  it  is,  or  the  same  is,  §  119,  2.  —  £3$,  business,  occupation, 
in  the  const,  state  before  in,  which  is  here  a  noun  used  for  an 
adjective,  §  104,  1.  The  distinctive  accent  (Rebhia)  gives  the 
form  with  Qamets,  instead  of  the  original  Pattah,  3H.  Such  a 
grammatical  relation  of  nouns  connected  intimately,  is  not  unfre- 
quent ;  see  Ecc.  4:8;  5  :  13  ;  Ezek.  11:2;  Prov.  6:21; 
24  :  25  ;    28  :  5,  and  compare   Gr.  §  104,  1.     The  meaning  of 


144  ECCLESIASTES    I.   14. 

the  word  £55  here,  and  in  several  other  places  in  Ecc.,  viz.,  occu- 
pation, business,  is  peculiar  to  this  book  alone  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. In  Rabbinic,  the  like  is  very  frequent.  It  comes  from 
the  meaning  of  No.  II.  under  n;s>,  which  is  laborem  impendit, 
followed  by  a  before  the  object  on  which  the  labor  is  bestowed ; 
see  the  end  of  this  verse.  The  same  meaning  and  construction 
is  common  both  to  the  Syriac  and  Arabic.  Specially  is  the  word 
applied  to  a  toilsome  labor  bestowed  on  anything ;  which  is  just 
the  case  before  us.  Before  *,n3  the  pron.  'TtBSt  is  implied,  §  121, 
3.  God  has  assigned  to  the  sons  of  men,  is  designed  to  show 
that  an  overruling  Providence  controls  all  such  things,  and  there- 
fore that  men  should  not  murmur  because  this  is  their  lot.  No- 
where does  the  writer  cast  imputations  upon  Providence  for  its 
allotments ;  but  still,  he  fully  states  the  trials  and  grievances  of 
man,  under  the  immutable  arrangements  of  Providence.  —  ni5§ 
in  the  like  sense  as  £». 

(14)  I  considered  all  the  works  which  are  done  under  the  sun,  and  lo  !  all 
is  vanity  and  fruitless  effort. 

"rv^  is  used  to  designate  mental  seeing  or  consideration  (so 
here),  as  well  as  corporeal  seeing.  Works  are  here  the  same 
which  have  before  been  brought  to  view.  V3H  with  the  article, 
because  it  designates  an  entire  class  of  things.  —  tvn  TRSft  some 
translate  affliction  of  spirit,  deducing  the  word  from  r^n  or  r:n . 
But  this  cannot  be  done ;  for  such  verbs  do  not  yield  the  form  in 
question.  Another  class  render  it  feeding  of  the  wind,  deriving 
it  from  iiJ"!  to  feed,  and  comparing  Hos.  2:2..  But  the  noun  is 
abstract  in  its  present  form,  and  will  hardly  bear  this  verbal 
active  sense.  It  should  be  rviyi,  an  Infin.  nomen  actionis.  The 
word  seems  best  derived  from  IW  as  equivalent  to  SlX^ ,  to  take 
pleasure  in,  lo  will  or  desire.  So  the  Chald.  nrn  means.  We 
may  translate :  stadium  venti,  i.  e.,  a  windy  affair,  or  a  worthless 
business.     Considering  how  much  of  the  diction  of  the  book  con- 


ECCLESIASTES    I.   15,16-  145 

sists  of  the  later  Hebrew,  which  approaches  to  the  Chaldee,  such 
a  use  of  the  word  is  not  improbable.  But  this  use,  however,  in 
Hebrew,  is  to  be  found  only  in  Ecclesiastes.  This  sense  har- 
monizes well  with  yn  £Mp,  in  v.  13.  So  Knobel,  Ges.,  Rosenm., 
and  Heiligs. ;  and  to  this  I  see  no  weighty  objection.  The  form 
is  like  wniB  from  nnd,  Gr.  §  84,  V. 

This  result  shows  why,  in  the  preceding  verse,  he  declares  the 
undertaking  of  a  close  investigation  to  be  an  an  )yy ,  a  disagree- 
able occupation. 

(15)  That  which  is  crooked  cannot  be  straightened,  and  that  which  is 
wanting  cannot  be  numbered. 

Here  is  the  ground  of  the  sentiment  in  v.  14.  Human  efforts 
are  vain  and  fruitless,  because  they  cannot  change  or  amend  the 
constitution  and  course  of  things.  In  7  :  13,  the  MSB  is  attrib- 
uted to  God  as  a  work  of  his,  or  something  which  he  has  made. 
The  idea  here  is,  that  there  are  numerous  causes  of  human 
misery  and  suffering,  which  lie  under  no  control  of  man.  Many 
things  are  lacking  which  might  administer  to  his  comfort,  that 
cannot  be  at  all  supplied  by  any  human  effort.  Hence  the  ef- 
forts of  man,  in  pursuit  of  gratifying  his  desires,  are  a  n^l  MSI . 
The  Part.  MST3  is  in  Pual  of  rns ,  with  1  as  a  reg.  consonant.  — 
Vpn  is  neut.  intrans.  verb,  rectus  fuit,  and  so  it  may  be  rendered 
passively,  as  above.  i"Ppn  instead  of  "ten  or  "ton,  shows  the 
tendency,  in  the  later  Hebrew,  to  forms  of  this  kind.  —  m'SBrt, 
Inf.  Niph.  of  t~ya,  to  number.  When  the  parts  of  a  thing  can  be 
all  numbered,  everything  is  there  which  makes  a  complete  whole. 
The  lack,  in  the  present  case,  shows  imperfection  ;  and  one  which 
no  man  can  supply  or  make  up. 

(16)  I  spake  in  my  heart,  saying  :  I,  lo  !  I  have  increased  and  added  to 
wisdom  beyond  all  who  were  before  me  at  Jerusalem  —  and  my  mind  lias 
considered  wisdom  and  knowledge  very  much. 

To  speak  in  the  heart,  means  to  commune  with  one's  self,  to 

13 


146  ECCLESIASTES    I.  17,18. 

reflect  or  deliberate  upon.  The  ^ia  which  stands  before  'nt'n  is 
designed  to  give  special  emphasis  to  the  clause.  The  shape  of 
the  Heb.  is  such  as  I  have  given  to  the  Eng.  translation  above. 
inbrtsn,  in  Hiph.  means  to  make  great,  i.  e.,  to  increase,  to  en- 
large. —  TiSOin,  Hiph.  of  S)t£,  I  made  addition  to  ;  i.  e.,  he  in- 
creased the  wisdom  which  had  before  become  great,  he  added  to 
it  still  more  by  his  strenuous  efforts.  The  second  bs> ,  before  the 
name  of  a  place,  means  at ;  see  Lex.  ps  ,  3.  —  iiairi ,  Inf.  Hiph., 
lit.  multiplicando.  In  meaning  =  lata  (not  used  in  this  book), 
and  sometimes  both  are  united  in  the  Hebrew  for  the  sake  of  in- 
tensity. Its  adverbial  use,  as  here,  is  very  common  everywhere, 
Gr.  §  98,  2,  d.  —  iiyil  ^-^  >  the  ^rs^  wor<i  means  'practical  or 
prudential  wisdom,  while  T/S'n  designates  theoretical  knowledge  or 
sagacity ;  like  the  Greek  o-o</>ia  and  yvoxm.  For  the  first  Qa- 
mets  in  rril ,  see  Lex.  1 ;  for  the  second,  Gr.  §  29,  4.  The 
form  is  the  same  as  that  of  the  feminine  Infinitive  of  ST) ;  but 
the  meaning  is  abstract,  and  it  is  not,  like  the  Inf.,  a  mere  nomen 
actionis. 

All  who  were  before  him  in  Jerusalem,  cannot  mean  all  persons 
of  every  class,  but  cdl  kings.     See  Introd.,  §  5. 

(17)  And  I  applied  my  mind  to  know  wisdom,  and  to  know  madness  and 
folly ;  I  perceived  that  this  also  is  fruitless  effort. 

For  the  ii-  in  the  first  verb,  see  §  48  b,  2,  a.  —  rr*n ,  with  ? 
implied,  as  in  the  preceding  case  it  is  expressed,  viz.,  in  PiS'ib . 
For  the  pointing  of  p  ,  see  Lex.  b .  —  nibVn ,  Plur.  of  rYibbin 
(10  :  13),  and  much  oftener  employed,  because  it  is  intense  = 
ravings.  —  MP=ftj  with  Sin ;  more  correctly  is  G  put  for  it)  in 
2  :  3,  12,  13  ;  7  :  25  ;  10  :  1,  13  ;  for  b  follows  the  true  etymol- 
ogy. —  K*l ,  is,  as  before.  —  mi  'j'han  the  same  as  mi  nwi  in 
v.  14.  It  is  from  the  same  root  (nrn),  and  differs  merely  in 
form  from  the  other,  §  83,  15,  1G. 

(IS)  For  in  much  wisdom  is  much  irritation;  and  he  who  addcth  to  his 
knowledge,  addcth  to  his  Borrow. 


ECCLESIASTES    II.   1.  147 

The  reason  is  here  given  of  what  is  asserted  at  the  close  of 
the  preceding  verso.  Irritation  or  vexation  results  from  the 
often-disappointed  hopes  and  efforts  to  extend  one's  knowledge. 
Sorrow  may  refer  to  the  depression  of  mind  which  often  suc- 
ceeds intense  study  and  efforts  to  acquire  knowledge,  or  possibly 
to  the  bodily  indisposition  which  commonly  attends  such  exer- 
tions. When  the  pursuit  of  wisdom,  and  the  efforts  to  separate 
it  from  folly,  result  in  this  state  of  mind  and  body,  it  becomes 
plain  that  it  is  a  fruitless  pursuit,  in  respect  to  attaining  to  solid 
and  permanent  happiness.  In  accordance  with  this  sentiment 
Cicero  speaks:  Videtur  mihi  cadere  in  sapientem  aegritudo, 
Tusc.  III.  4.  So  Montenabbi :  "  Destiny  contends  with  the  pre- 
eminent; by  the  side  of  greater  knowledge  marches  greater 
grief;"  in  Gynsburg's  Geist  des  Orient,  s.  144. 


§  3.  Efforts  to  obtain  Happiness  by  the  Pursuit  of  Pleasure. 

Chap.  II.  1—11. 

[These  are  presented  in  a  variety  of  particulars.  Coheleth  indulged  in 
mirth  and  wine ;  in  building  and  planting;  in  parks  and  pleasure-gankns ; 
in  the  possession  of  many  servants  and  of  many  flocks  and  herds ;  in  heap- 
ing up  gold  and  silver ;  in  procuring  singing  men  and  women ;  in  marrying 
a  wife  and  taking  many  concubines ;  and  finally,  in  everything  which  could 
gratify  either  the  eye,  or  the  ear,  or  any  of  the  senses.  At  last,  he  found 
all  these  indulgences  to  be  utterly  incompetent  to  afford  the  happiness  which 
he  sought,  vs.  1 — 11.  In  I  :  17  he  says  that  he  sought  out  both  wisdom  and 
folly.  Of  his  ill  success  in  the  former  pursuit,  he  has  already  told  us  ;  he  is 
now  going  to  tell  us  what  resulted  from  the  folly  of  pursuing  pleasure.] 

(1)1  said  in  my  heart :  Come  now,  let  me  try  thee  with  pleasure,  and  do 
thou  enjoy  good  !     And  lo !   even  this  is  vanity. 

This  form  of  monologue  with  one's  self  is  not  without  parallel 
in  the  Ileb.  Scriptures  ;  see  Ps.  42  :  6,  12  ;  43  :  5,  perhaps  Ps. 
16  :  2,  comp.  Luke  12  :  18,  seq.,  "  I  will  say  to  my  soul:   Soul, 


148  ECCLESIASTES    II.  2. 

thou  hast  many  good  things,"  etc.  (for  r£),  nrb  emphatic  pro- 
longed Imper.,  come  thou!  —  Fto©3»,  Piel  of  rtW  with  smT.  hav- 
ing n  paragogic :  Let  me  try  thee.  Both  suffixes  refer  to  nb  = 
1TB3 ,  for  both  occasionally  =  self.  —  nn^bn ,  with  joy,  i.  e.,  pleas- 
ure of  every  kind.  —  fi^p.l ,  and  enjoy  thou  ;  but  the  form  is 
Imper.  masc.  in  reference  to  nb .  Some  translate  :  "  Thou  shalt 
enjoy,  etc."  But  this  is  less  energetic  than  the  Imper.  form  of 
the  Hebrew.  To  see  is  often  used  in  the  Old  Test,  and  in  the 
New  for  perceiving,  enjoying  ;  comp.  6  :  6.  —  d|,  also,  likewise  ; 
i.  e.,  found  this  to  be  vanity  as  well  as  the  matter  set  forth  in 
1  :  17.  —  HSil,  see  here,  lo !  calling  special  attention.  —  ^n, 
This  is. 

Such  is  the  general  proposition  of  §  3.  The  proofs  and  illus- 
tration of  what  is  here  laid  down  are  detailed  in  the  sequel. 
The  good  in  question  is  not  moral  or  spiritual,  but  natural  physi- 
cal good,  i.  e.,  pleasure  or  enjoyment.  The  writer  intends  to 
show  that  all  the  sources  of  it  fail  to  produce  the  desired  end, 
I.  e.,  solid  and  lasting  happiness. 

(2)  In  respect  to  laughter  I  said  :  Madness  !  And  in  respect  to  pleasure  : 
What  avails  it  ? 

h ,  in  respect  to,  see  Lex.  "b  A.  5.  — bbiiTa ,  Part.  Poal,  neut. 
gender,  silly  stuff,  or  a  stupid  business.  By  laughter  is  meant 
boisterous  or  noisy  mirth,  i.  e.,  unrestrained  and  immoderate 
rioting.  But  «"iJT2b  designates  pleasure  in  general,  comprehend- 
ing all  and  every  kind  of  it.  Respecting  this  he  asks :  What 
does  it  avail,  or  yield  ?  i.  e.,  it  yields  nothing  of  solid  and  lasting 
worth.  —  ril  is  fem.,  and  peculiar  to  this  book  only  as  to  fre- 
quency. It  belongs  to  the  later  Hebrew,  and  seems  to  be  an 
apoc.  form  of  rm,  like  T\~\  out  of  trfta  ;  for  examples  of  it,'  see 
5  :  15,  18  ;  7  :  23 ;  9:13.  —  tfob  Part,  fem.,  with  meaning  as 
in  '''is  STJ2,  to  produce  fruit ;  which  meaning  is  very  common. 
For  the  Dagh.  conjunc.  in  *,  see  under  fi?2  in  Lex. 


ECCLESIASTES    II.   3.  140 

(3)  I  sought  in  my  mind  to  draw  my  flesh  hy  wine,  and  my  mind  con- 
tinued to  guide  with  sagacity;  and  also  to  lav  hold  upon  folly,  until  I  should 
see  what  is  good  for  the  sons  of  men  which  they  should  do  under  heaven, 
during  the  number  of  the  days  of  their  lives. 

The  b  here  before  the  Inf.  might  have  the  same  sense  that  I 
have  given  to  it  in  the  preceding  verse,  viz.,  with  respect  to;  but 
the  version  above  is  more  congruous  here.  The  preceding  verb, 
'Vpn,  means  to  investigate,  lit.  to  go  round  and  round  a  thing  in 
the  mind ;  with  the  design  of  preparing  for  action.  Erroneous 
is  the  version :  "  I  determined  in  my  mind  to  confirm  or  attract, 
etc."  The  meaning  is,  that  Coheleth  often  and  seriously  re- 
flected on  the  doings  in  which  he  was  about  to  engage.  —  TpttHa^ 
here  has  long  been  an  offendiculum  criticorum.  The  literal 
meaning  of  the  verb  is  to  draw,  drag  along,  draw  out  in  the 
sense  of  extracting,  or  (in  case  of  sound)  protracting.  These 
meanings  exhaust  the  legitimate  sense  of  the  word  ;  the  rest  as- 
signed to  it  are  factitious,  and  made  out  from  the  apparent  stress 
of  the  occasion.  Ges.  renders :  firmavit,  strengthened,  because 
the  corresponding  Syriac  verb  has  the  sense  of  induruit.  But 
this  meaning  is  inapposite  here ;  for  it  is  pleasurable  indulgence 
in  wine  which  is  the  immediate  subject-matter  of  the  discourse, 
and  not  wine  used  as  a  tonic  or  medicine,  i.  e.,  to  strengthen. 
We  are  not  at  liberty  to  appeal  to  the  Syriac,  if  we  can  do  as 
well  without  it.  Knobel :  festhalten,  in  the  sense  of  holding  fast 
to,  i.  e.,  retaining  and  not  remitting  the  use  of  wine.  But  so  the 
proper  order  of  things  would  be  reversed.  It  is  the  drinking  of 
it  that  comes  first  in  order ;  the  holding  on  to  drinking  is  a  sub- 
sequent matter,  and  therefore  should  not  be  placed  first.  Heilig- 
stedt :  trahere,  i.  e.,  attrahere,  to  attract,  i.  e.,  allure,  which  surely 
is  not  the  meaning  of  TjCTa .  Then  it  requires  "jl^a  to  be  trans- 
lated fo  ivine  [attrahere  ad  vi?ium,as  he  renders  it),  which  is  out 
of  the  question  here,  because  wine  is  the  instrument  or  agent  by 
which  the  drawing  is  done.  J.  H.  Mich,  (in  Bibl.)  :  "  ut  pro- 
trahcrem,  i.  e.,  paullo  diutius  detinerem ; "  a  sense  which  would 

13* 


150  ECCLESIASTES    II.  3. 

give  to  the  wine-drinking  a  medicinal  object  and  aspect  here,  in- 
stead of  a  pleasurable  one,  as  the  text  demands ;  and  this  would 
be  inapposite.  Besides,  diutius  detinerem  is  a  sense  that  the  verb 
will  hardly  bear.  But  after  rejecting  all  this,  what  have  we  left  ? 
Hitzig  has  given  a  new  turn  to  the  matter.  He  puts  Tp$ha  in 
relation  with  the  following  ifnb ;  the  one  draws  the  chariot  in 
which  the  man  (17:3)  is  seated,  while  the  other  drives  or  guides 
it.  He  compares  with  it  the  phrase  :  to  support  or  prop  up  the 
heart  with  bread.  In  this  last  phrase,  bread  is  represented  as 
holding  up  or  supporting.  So  to  draw  or  carry  along  by  the  aid 
of  wine,  he  thinks  to  be  a  parallel  mode  of  expression.  "Wine 
"keeps  the  machine  in  motion."  But  this  seems  rather  far- 
fetched, at  first  view.  To  draw  along  the  body  or  flesh  is,  at 
least,  a  metaphor  elsewhere  unknown.  To  protract  the  flesh 
would  be  less  strange,  if  it  could  have  any  other  meaning  than  a 
medicinal  one,  *.  e.,  prolong  its  continuance.  To  draw  out,  in 
the  sense  of  widening  or  expanding,  would  be  inappropriate. 
Coheleth  surely  could  not  expect  pleasure  from  making  his  body 
huge  and  unwieldy.  Still,  that  ana  has  a  relation  to  Tpu? ,  seems 
to  be  altogether  probable.  They  are  correlates,  in  a  like  way  as 
coach  and  driver.  Urged  by  this  apparent  correlation,  and  by 
the  difficulties  of  the  other  and  different  versions,  we  can  hardly 
refuse  to  conclude  that  the  first  expression  regards  men  as  mov- 
ing along  on  the  journey  of  life,  while  wine  is,  so  to  speak,  the 
drawer  of  their  chariot.  But  such  a  steed  is  often  furious,  and 
so  it  needs  a  Srib  endowed  with  wisdom,  i.  e.,  skilful  leader  or 
driver.  And  such  a  driver  Coheleth  employed.  In  other  words : 
he  did  not  go  into  excess  in  drinking  wine,  and  thus  injure  or 
destroy  himself ;  but  when  he  indulged  in  it,  he  took  rr:=n  for 
his  guide ;  i.  e.,  discretion,  wariness,  or  sagacity.  In  this  way  he 
might  proceed  some  length  in  his  experiment,  without  material 
harm.  —  *iba  is  the  corporeal  me,  the  physical  self.  —  aril  means 
literally  panting ;  then  making  to  pant,  to  agitate,  or  urge,  and 
so  the  Part,  means,  one  who  urges,  etc.,  e.  g.,  as  a  driver  urges 


ECCLESIASTES    II.  3.  151 

his  team,  or  a  shepherd  his  flock.  The  discretion  of  Coheleth 
in  providing  such  a  guide  or  coachman  (so  to  speak)  as  n^rn , 
when  wine  was  carrying  him  along  on  his  journey,  is  very  appar- 
ent. On  the  whole,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  sense  thus 
given  by  Hitzig  is  significant,  and  to  the  writer's  present  purpose. 
The  main  difficulty  is  the  seeming  strangeness  of  the  figurative 
or  symbolical  representation.  But  we  now  and  then  are  com- 
pelled to  admit,  in  other  cases,  imagery  not  elsewhere  employed, 
on  the  ground  of  securing  congruity  in  the  sense.  Must  we  not 
acquiesce  in  this  here,  inasmuch  as  it  does  not  violate  the  princi- 
ples of  lexicography,  while  it  makes  the  passage  altogether  sig- 
nificant ? 

—  truth  connects  with  tp'llteb ,  and  both  fall  back  on  win .  He 
resolved  in  his  mind  the  project  of  laying  hold  on  folly,  i.  e.,  to 
grasp  it  and  keep  hold  of  it,  until  he  could  thoroughly  examine 
it.  In  the  preceding  chapter,  we  are  told  how  he  had  been  dis- 
appointed in  the  pursuit  of  wisdom.  Now  he  is  making  a  new 
sort  of  trial.  He  mixes  wisdom  and  folly  together ;  i.  e.,  he  gives 
up  himself  to  indulgence  in  wine,  but  takes  care  not  to  lay  aside 
discretion  in  the  matter.  The  drinking  is  the  matter  of  folly ; 
and  this  is  what  he  designs  to  investigate.  Until  I  might  see 
what  is  good,  etc.,  *>!*  const,  form  of  ^ ,  and  usually  connected 
with  a  pronoun  of  some  kind.  Originally  it  means  where;  but 
secondarily  it  occupies  the  same  place  as  ^ttJK,  and  has  a  like 
sense.  It  is  the  sign  of  a  question  before  pronouns  and  adverbs  ; 
and  this,  whether  the  question  be  direct,  or  (as  here)  indirect. 
We  may  therefore  translate  it  here  by  what,  as  do  Hitzig,  Knob., 
and  Heiligs.  —  Sia  here,  as  usual  in  this  book,  means  what  is 
useful,  pleasant,  promotive  of  enjoyment.  —  fe;?  *11DK,  that  they 
should  do,  not  (as  many)  what  they  do;  see  Lex.  -im,  B.  2. 
The  object  of  Coheleth  was  to  see,  by  experiment,  what  could  be 
done  to  advantage,  or  so  as  to  secure  true  enjoyment  in  respect 
to  the  matter  before  him.  —  ^Sb^a  is  translated  by  De  Wette, 
Knobel,  and  others,  few  (lit.,  as  they  aver,  fewness).     But  no 


152  ECCLESIASTES    II.  4. 

case  occurs  of  "iB&tt,  in  the  const,  state  as  here,  with  such  a 
meaning.  All  the  cases,  e.  g.,  Gen.  34  :  30 ;  Deut  4  :  27  ;  Jer. 
44  :  28  ;  Ps.  105  :  12  ;  1  Chron.  16  :  19  ;  Job  16  :  22,  et  al.,  are 
cases  where  the  form  is  ^3&E,  which  is  in  the  Gen.  after  another 
noun,  and  thus  meaning  fewness,  it  becomes  an  adjective  z=few, 
§  104,  1.  Lit.  it  designates  that  which  can  be  numbered,  and  of 
course  comparatively  a  few.  But  it  also  means  number  simply 
considered  ;  and  such  is  the  meaning  here,  it  being  in  the  Ace. 
of  time  how  long  ;  we  must  then  translate  thus :  during  the  num- 
ber of  the  days,  etc.     See  §  116,  2. 

Sentiment:  'I  revolved  in  my  mind  the  effort,  to  make  the 
journey  of  life  by  the  aid  of  wine  to  carry  me  along,  associated 
with  sagacity  as  my  conductor  or  guide  ;  and  thus  to  subject  to 
examination  the  apparent  folly  of  drinking  wine,  until  I  should 
come  to  see  how  far  it  might  promote  our  present  enjoyment. 
In  this  meaning  we  may  acquiesce,  undisturbed  by  any  incon- 
gruity excepting  the  apparent  singularity  of  the  imagery  em- 
ployed. I  feel  philologically  compelled  to  assent  to  this ;  at 
Last,  until  more  light  is  thrown  upon  the  doubtful  clauses.  The 
new  meanings  given  to  the  word  "qtio  do  not  make  an  apposite 
sense  here ;  and  therefore  it  is  better  to  abide  by  the  old  one  if 
we  can. 

(4)  I  engaged  in  great  undertakings;  I  built  for  myself  houses,  and 
planted  for  myself  vineyards. 

The  first  clause,  lit.  I  made  great  my  works,  is  a  general  in- 
troduction to  what  follows ;  which  consists  in  designations  of  the 
specific  undertakings  that  constituted  his  works.  *»b  is  the  Dat. 
commodi.  Solomon  was  thirteen  years  in  building  his  own 
]ii.iji)iiiccnt  house;  he  also  built  a  like  one  for  his  Egyptian 
wife,  besides  his  ''house  of  the  forest  of  Lebanon"  (1  K.  7:  1, 
2,  8),  not  to  mention  the  temple,  IK.  9:  19.  His  vineyards 
are  mentioned  in  Cant.  8:11. 


ECCLESIASTES    II.  5,6.  153 

(5)  I  made  for  myself  gardens  and  pleasure-grounds,  and  I  planted  in 
them  fruit-trees  of  every  kind. 

•jS  is  from  "ra  ;  hence  the  Dagh.  forte  in  the  plural.  The 
verb  means  to  protect ;  and  therefore  the  Heb.  idea  of  a  garden 
is  that  of  an  enclosed  or  protected  place. — tn^D  is  a  foreign  word, 
found  elswhere  only  in  Cant.  4:  13.  Neh.  2  :  8.  The  latter  pas- 
sage shows  that  large  trees  belonged  to  such  a  paradise.  The 
Greeks  transplanted  the  word,  through  Xenophon,  into  their  lan- 
guage—  7rapaSao-os ;  Xen.  Cyrop.  I.  3.  5.  12.  Oecon,  4.  13.  In 
Armenian,  pardes  signifies  a  garden  close  to  the  house,  filled  with 
herbage,  flowers,  and  grass.  Hitzig  and  Heiligs.  derive  the  word 
from  the  old  Sanscrit  pradeca,  which  means  an  enclosure,  like 
the  Heb.  "ja.  Still,  a  pleasure-ground  would  be  enclosed,  and 
would  naturally  contain  trees  and  shrubs  of  every  kind,  and 
specially  fruit-trees.  The  Arabians  use  the  word,  and  the  Per- 
sians seem  to  have  derived  it  from  them.  It  belongs  only  to  the 
later  Hebrew.  In  the  older  Heb.,  yr$  "ja  designates  the  place 
where  Adam  was  originally  stationed.  Gen.  2:8,  10;  13:  10. — 
Dtia,  in  them,  denotes  that  both  the  gardens  and  pleasure-grounds 
were  planted  with  fruit-trees;  comp.  Cant.  4:  13. 

(6)  I  made  for  myself  pools  of  water,  for  watering  from  them  the  groves 
shooting  up  trees. 

PiiS'na  with-  immutable  in  regimen,  §  93.  1,  in  e.  g.  The  first 
meaning  of  7pS  is  to  kneel,  so  that  ns'na  lit.  designates  a  hieeling- 
place,  viz.,  for  camels  when  they  drink.  Hence  a  pool,  a  water- 
ing-place. The  design  of  the  pools  is  described  in  the  sequel, 
viz.,  to  supply  water  for  the  trees.  See  the  pool  of  the  king, 
Neh.  2  :  14,  which  the  Jews  held,  and  not  improbably,  to  have 
been  constructed  by  Solomon.  —  tto'lS  is  properly  a  neut.  in- 
trans.,  but  still  it  is  followed  by  the  Ace.  fiW,  which  is  often 
employed  to  designate  the  object  in  respect  to  or  as  to  which  the 
assertion  of  the  verb  or  Part,  is  made,  §  117,  3.  Comp.  Pro  v. 
10  :  31 ;  24  :  31 ;  Is.  34  :  13,  for  like  specimens  of  the  Ace. 


154  ECCLESIASTES    II.  7,8. 

(7)  I  procured  servants  and  handmaids,  and  those  born  in  the  house  be- 
longed to  me ;  much  property  also  in  herds  and  Mocks  belonged  to  me,  more 
than  all  [possessed]  who  were  before  me  in  Jerusalem. 

^n-jj?  often  means  to  buy  or  purchase,  which  I  take  to  be  the 
sense  here,  although  my  translation  does  not  imply  it  of  necessity. 
rW"i3?,  sons  of  the  house,  was  the  softer  Heb.  appellation  of 
slaves.  It  designates  such  as  were  born  of  bond-women  in  the 
houses  of  their  masters  ;  for,  by  universal  custom,  the  children 
followed  the  condition  of  the  mother;  Gen.  14  :  14;  15  :  2,  3. 
Sometimes  they  were  called  mn  ■n*^  ;  at  others,  Stok  "*3a .  —  rrn 
*b ,  lit.  there  was  to  me  =  1  had,  or  possessed.  On  this  ground, 
i.  e.,  because  the  meaning  of  a  verb  active  is  really  designated, 
the  Ace.  (sons  of  the  house)  is  placed  after  rnti ;  see  like  cases 
in  Gen.  47  :  24  ;  Ex.  12  :  49 ;  28  :  7  ;  Num.  9:14;  15  :  29  ; 
Deut.  18  :  2  ;  2  Chron.  17  :  13,  where  i"Pfi  disagrees  with  its 
subject,  either  in  number  or  gender ;  i.  e.,  it  is  used  in  a  kind  of 
impersonal  way.  —  l&Sj  rendered  flocks,  includes  both  sheep  and 
goats.  Above  all  before  me,  etc.,  i.  e.,  above  all  kings  who  were 
before  him.  See  the  remarks  on  1:16,  and  reference.  For  the 
illustration  of  abundance  in  such  possessions,  see  Gen.  12  :  16 ; 
Job  1  :  3. 

(8)  I  heaped  up  for  myself  both  silver  and  gold,  and  the  treasures  of  kings 
and  provinces ;  I  procured  for  myself  singing-men  and  singing-women,  and 
the  delight  of  the  sons  of  men,  a  wife  and  wives. 

Riches  were  of  course  to  be  expected  among  the  train  of  ex- 
periments. In  these  Solomon  abounded  above  all.  The  treas- 
ures of  kings,  viz.,  such  as  are  brought  to  view  in  1  K.  5  :  1  ; 
10  :  15  ;  4:21.  And  provinces ■,  viz.,  such  as  the  twelve  prov- 
inces mentioned  in  1  K.  4  :  7  seq.,  comp.  v.  20,  which  were  divis- 
ions of  the  kingdom  for  the  purpose  of  collecting  revenue,  ^"ra 
is  ;i  word  belonging  to  the  later  Hebrew  only.  The  article  before 
the  plur.  in  the  text  refers  to  well-known  provinces ;  comp.  1  K. 


ECCLESIASTES    II.  8.  155 

20  :  15,  and  Ps.  45  :  17  (16).  As  to  riches  in  general,  see  1  K. 
10  :  27  seq. ;  2  Chron.  1  :  15;  9  :  20.  Singing-men  and  sink- 
ing-women were  a  part  of  the  usual  accompaniments  of  feasting; 
2  Sam.  19  :  35.  Compare  the  allusions  to  the  like  custom  in  Is. 
5:12;  Amos  6  :  5,  6. 

tiVniBI  ST-Jld  has  been  the  theme  of  much  conjecture  and  dispute. 
Still,  it  would  seem  that  a  plain  path  has  at  last  been  opened  by 
Ilitzig.  It  is  certain  that  d^SST),  in  Cant.  7  :  7,  refers  to  amo- 
rous delight  (as  the  Latins  sometimes  use  deliciae),  to  which 
Solomon,  beyond  any  other  Jewish  king  that  we  know  of,  was 
addicted ;  see  1  K.  11:3;  Cant.  6  :  8.  Again,  this  kind  of 
pleasure  is  nowhere  referred  to  in  the  context;  and  we  can 
hardly  conceive  that  it  would  be  entirely  omitted  in  such  a  case 
as  his,  for  he  had  seven  hundred  wives  and  three  hundred  con- 
cubines. Moreover,  the  singular  here  (iT-rttj),  and  then  the  plur. 
rvfatiJ ,  agrees  well  with  the  fact,  that  there  was  one,  the  proper 
queen,  who  was  Solomon's  "btt&  (Ps.  45  :  10),  i.  e.,  spouse,  in  the 
higher  sense  (see  1  K.  3  :  1 ;  7:  8),  and  that  he  also  had  many 
subordinate  wives.  In  accordance  with  the  characteristic  traits 
of  Solomon's  life,  this  circumstance  is  put  last,  as  being  the  high- 
est point  or  summit  of  his  efforts  to  obtain  enjoyment.  The  stem 
of  the  word  appears  to  be  "O&J,  from  which  the  derivate  rnu:  comes, 
with  5  assimilated  and  expressed  by  Dagh.  f.,  as  elsewhere  often. 
This  verb  is  used  in  Arabic,  and  in  the  third  Conj.  (=  IDX'J)  it 
means  to  take  into  one's  arms,  to  embrace,  to  enclose  around  the 
neck,  etc.  The  derivate  noun,  with  73  prefixed,  means,  in  Arabic, 
bolster,  pillow,  and  then  is  figuratively  employed,  as  in  our  text. 
So  the  Greek  Ae^os,  a  couch,  a  marriage-couch,  also  a  spouse. 
The  endless  conjectures  of  commentators  respecting  these  words 
are  hardly  worth  recounting  and  refuting,  since,  as  the  words  are 
a7ra£  Acyoyoum,  it  is  proper,  of  course,  to  resort  to  a  kindred  lan- 
guage for  illustration;  and  the  meaning  thus  obtained  fits  the 
passage  exactly,  and  supplies  a  necessary  desideratum  in  the  list 
of  objects  which  had  been  pursued. 


156  ECCLESIASTES    11.9,10. 

(9)  And  I  waxed  gre.it,  and  increased  more  than  all  who  were  in  Jerusa- 
lem before  me ;  my  wisdom  also  continued  with  me. 

Waxed  great  in  the  same  sense  as  in  Gen.  24  :  35  ;  26:13; 
Job  1:3;  i.  e.,  in  the  sense  of  acquiring  large  possessio?is  or 
property.  Above  all  before  me  in  Jerusalem,  see  on  v.  7.  —  rrn 
sing,  because  b'3  is  so.  —  T?^-?'  continued,  stood  firm,  abode,  Ps. 
102 :  27  ;  Jer.  48  :  11,  seq.  In  v.  3  he  tells  us  that  he  indulged 
in  wine  under  the  guidance  of  wisdom  or  discretion.  Here  he 
tells  us  that  his  discretion  was  ever  retained  in  the  midst  of  all 
his  various  indulgences.  In  other  words :  He  never  gave  him- 
self up  to  immoderate  and  excessive  indulgences,  but  acted  as  a 
sober  man,  earnestly  making  experiments  in  order  to  learn  what 
the  true  good  is.  Tempered  by  this  same  discretion  were  his 
indulgences  at  large,  which  he  next  describes. 

(10)  And  all  which  mine  eves  sought  for  I  withheld  not  from  them;  I  kept 
not  back  my  heart  from  any  joy ;  for  my  heart  was  cheered  by  all  my  toil, 
and  this  was  my  portion  of  all  my  toil. 

Sought  for,  lit.  asked  for,  demanded.  Of  course  he  means, 
when  he  says  /  kept  not  bach,  to  designate  indulgence  only  in 
such  things  as  were  within  his  power.  —  *ab  (from  nb)  is  hardly 
represented,  as  to  its  Hebrew  meaning,  by  heart.  It  means  the 
source  of  sensations,  affections,  and  emotions.  We  have  no  one 
word  that  corresponds  wholly  to  it.  Soul,  mind,  which  z\\  some- 
times means,  is  not  congruous  here.  It  designates  the  self  that 
feels  and  enjoys.  —  froto,  Part,  of  a  verb  intrans.,  §  43,  1,  §  49, 
2.  a.  —  baa,  12,  i.  e.,  yq  by,  by  reason  of,  a  before  a  noun  desig- 
nating the  cause  or  source  of  the  joy  in  question ;  comp.  for  the 
like  sense,  12:12;  Ps.  28  :  7  ;  2  K.  6  :  27 ;  Prov.  5  :  18 ;  1 
Chron.  20  :  27.  By  all  my  toil,  i.  e.,  his  toil  was  the  ground  or 
source  of  his  enjoyment.  He  sought  not  for  pleasure  beyond 
those  things  on  which  lie  bestowed  time  and  pains.  He  was  not 
a  mere  reckless  debauchee  or  Epicurean.  —  pb n  means  that  which 


ECCLESIASTES    II.   11.  157 

is  apportioned  or  allotted  to  any  one.  —  brra  here  means  of  or from 
all,  a  again  denoting  source,  quasi  out  of. 

(11)  Then  I  turned  towards  all  my  works  which  my  hands  had  performed, 
and  towards  the  toil  which  I  had  labored  to  accomplish,  and  lo !  all  was 
vanity  and  fruitless  effort,  and  there  is  no  profit  under  the  sun. 

One  may  supply  the  verb  to  look  (from  v.  12)  after  hP"25. 
Plainly,  the  Hebrew  expression  is  elliptical ;  but  that  ellipsis  is 
immediately  supplied  in  the  sequel.  The  toil,  etc.,  Heb.  lit.  the 
toil  which  I  had  toiled  to  accomplish.  Our  idiom  hardly  permits 
in  this  case  such  a  mode  of  expression.  There  is  no  profit, 
etc.,  a  general  proposition  ;  for  if  such  things  as  he  had  pursued ; 
would  not  afford  any  substantial  good,  then  nothing  else  earthly 
could  do  it,  and  the  proposition  is  generally  true. 


§  4.  The  Advantage  of  Wisdom  over  Folly  is  of  little  Account, 
and  does  not  exempt  from  the  common  Lot  of  Suffering  and 
Sorrow. 

II.    12—26. 

[The  writer  has  now  come  to  the  end  of  his  experiences  in  regard  to  the 
means  of  happiness.  Neither  efforts  to  acquire  wisdom,  nor  folly  in  indul- 
gence, will  secure  this,  nor  even  these  combined,  vs.  1 — 11.  He  comes  then 
deliberately  to  inquire  whether  icisdom  in  itself  has  any  preeminence  over 
folly.  In  some  respects,  he  says  it  has  ;  but  still,  these  are  not  sufficient  to 
exempt  it  from  the  imputation  of  being  vanity ;  for,  first,  it  dies  with  every 
man  who  acquires  it,  and  passes  not  on  by  heritage  to  another.  Every  one 
must  begin  de  novo  to  acquire  it  for  himself.  Next,  it  does  not  exempt  the 
wise  man  from  the  same  common  lot  with  the  fool.  All  are  the  sport  of  ac- 
cident alike,  and  all  die  at  last  alike,  and  are  equally  forgotten.  Thirdly, 
a  repulsive  aspect  is  given  to  life  by  the  fact,  that  all  which  one  has  labo- 
riously and  skilfully  toiled  to  acquire,  passes,  at  his  death,  to  others  of  whom 
he  cannot  know  whether  they  will  be  wise  or  foolish.  What  good,  then,  can 
come  to  him,  which  will  compensate  for  all  the  toil  and  suffering  and  wake- 
ful nights  which  he  has  endured  in  order  to  obtain  substance  ?  Who  can 
look  on  all  this  but  with  feelings  of  despair  ? 

14 


158  ECCLESIASTES    II.    12. 

The  conclusion,  then,  to  which  he  comes  is,  that  the  only  real  good  to  he 
derived  from  all  is  that  which  we  enjoy,  from  day  to  day,  in  the  gratifica- 
tion of  hunger  and  thirst,  and  other  appetites  which  are  the  sources  of  present 
pleasure.  This  is  our  own,  and  we  may  regard  it  as  a  kind  of  good.  But 
even  this,  to  whatever  it  may  amount,  comes  all  from  the  hand  of  God. 
Such  as  are  good  in  his  sight,  i.  e.,  the  objects  of  his  favor,  may  sometimes  be 
permitted  to  enjoy  what  the  sinner,  his  enemy,  has  labored  to  provide.  But, 
after  all,  even  this  will  not  exempt  the  whole  from  the  category  of  vanity  arid 
empty  pursuit.  Such  pleasures  are  too  low  and  fleeting  to  confer  substantial 
good  on  rational  beings.] 

(12)  Then  I  turned  to  contemplate  wisdom — even  madness  and  folly; 
for  what  shall  the  man  [do]  who  comes  after  the  king  ?  Even  that  which  he 
did  long  ago. 

Evidently  a  new  aspect  of  the  subject  is  introduced  by  this 
verse.  I  have  therefore  rendered  1  as  a  transition-particle,  as  it 
often  is,  like  ko.1  in  kgu.  cyeWo,  etc.  —  ^?^}  here,  and  generally 
through  this  book,  has  the  sense  of  sagacity,  discreet  wariness, 
or  dexterous  management,  whilst  in  the  Book  of  Proverbs  it  often 
has  a  sublimer  moral  sense,  designating  sagacious,  religious,  and 
moral  demeanor.  This  makes  one  point  of  palpable  distinction 
in  the  usus  loquendi  of  the  two  books.  The  explanation  of  the 
words  rvfea&l  rv&VliTi  is  attended  with  some  difficulty  here.  We 
may  regard  them  as  coordinates  with  <T32n  and  in  the  Ace.  after 
the  verb,  Klin,  and  objects  of  the  action  expressed  by  the  verb. 
But  in  1 :  17  the  writer,  to  avoid  any  misunderstanding,  has  re- 
peated the  verb  before  the  last  two  nouns.  Not  so  here,  how- 
ever. Moreover,  if  we  adopt  this  exegesis,  we  only  make 
him  to  repeat  here  what  he  has  already  said  in  1:17.  In 
the  mean  time  the  context  shows  that  he  had  done  what  was 
proposed  in  1 :  1 7.  Why  should  he  speak  here  as  if  he  were 
now  about  to  commence  the  process,  when  in  fact  he  has  already 
been  through  it?  It  would  rather  seem,  then,  that  some  result 
of  his  investigation  is  here  designated ;  for  the  clause  that  fol- 
lows shows  that  no  other  person  can  do  anything  more  than  the 


ECCLESIASTES    II.   12.  159 

king  has  done  ;  for  such  person  can  only  repeat  what  has  already 
been  done,  and  done  so  as  to  come  to  a  result.  This  result,  then, 
must  stand,  if  the  investigator  is  competent ;  and  it  is  to  be  re- 
garded as  correct.  It  has  been  suggested  that  folly  is  here  a 
second  object  in  the  Ace,  so  as  to  give  the  clause  this  turn :  to 
contemplate  wisdom  as  folly  ;  i.  e.,  to  regard  it  in  the  light  of  folly. 
The  whole  of  the  first  clause  would  then  signify  that  he  ad- 
dressed himself  to  the  eifort  of  considering  wisdom  in  this  light. 
But  to  be  told  that  he  set  out  with  such  design  in  view,  sounds 
rather  strange.  He  may  come  to  such  a  result,  but  would  hardly 
propose  it  beforehand  as  an  object  or  design  which  he  had  in  view. 
Moreover,  the  double  Ace,  in  such  a  case,  seems  doubtful,  if  we 
compare  Judg.  9:36.  It  appears  more  probable  that  madness 
and  folly  are  the  result  which  he  finds  in  respect  to  the  wisdom 
here  spoken  of;  comp.  Zech.  14:  6;  Is.  66  : 3  ;  Jer.  17 :  2,  for 
like  cases  of  result.  Such  wisdom  ends  in  nothing  essentially 
better  thanyb%.  And  so  the  sequel  goes  oi.  to  show.  All  would 
be  plain  if  there  stood  before  mibs&'i  rvWihl  the  usual  n«t  na  or 
}-isn.  But  brachylogy  or  pathos  may  have  occasioned  the 
omission  of  them.  In  the  sequel,  the  writer  has  shown  that  al- 
though wisdom,  in  itself  considered,  and  regard  being  paid  only 
to  its  proper  nature,  is  preferable  to  folly,  yet  in  its  residts  it 
has  nothing  to  boast  of.  This  the  various  considerations  subse- 
quently suggested  plainly  serve  to  show.  We  have  then  this 
sense :  To  consider  this  wisdom  (which  is  even  madness  and 
My) ;  for,  etc. 

The  last  half  of  the  verse  has  received  a  great  variety  of  expo- 
sitions. The  history  of  them  would  not  be  very  instructive. 
Enough,  if  the  sense  can  be  made  plain.  —  ^2  is  causal,  as  usual ; 
i.  e.,  it  assigns  a  ground  for  admitting  the  preceding  declaration. 
It  is  as  much  as  to  say :  This  is  true,  for  no  one  can  better  in- 
vestigate, or  better  come  to  a  conclusion,  in  regard  to  this  matter, 
than  the  king  (Coheleth,  1:  12),  who  has  already  examined  it. 
—  D"nxn  rra,  what  shall  the  man  [do],  etc.,  plainly  implying  the 


160  ECCLESIASTES    II.  12. 

verb  hto^,  as  in  Mai.  2  :  15  it  is  of  necessity  implied.  If  who 
•were  the  sense  required,  then  should  we  have  *a  instead  of  Fra  . 
This  last  is  the  Ace.  after  the  verb  implied.  The  article  here 
stands  before  D~x,  regarded  as  a  specific  individual,  viz.,  the  king's 
successor,  I.  e.,  he  who  comes  after  the  king.  The  question  is, 
whether  he  can  do  anything  better  than  has  already  been  done 
by  the  king  before  him,  and  so  make  out  a  different  result.  The 
answer  follows :  Even  that  which  he  long  ago  did ;  i.  e.,  he  can 
only  repeat  the  same  process,  and  come  to  the  same  result.  — 
tfflfcW  may  be  disposed  of  in  two  different  ways.  Usually,  it  is 
taken  (as  it  is  pointed)  for  the  third  pers.  plur.  impersonal,  what 
they  did,  i.  e.,  other  men  —  a  verb  with  an  indef.  Nom.  §  134.  3. 
This  wrould  be  well  enough,  if  in  it  were  contained  a  good  reason 
why  wisdom  is  found  to  be  folly.  But  the  simple  fact  that  noth- 
ing new  can  be  done,  has  no  direct  bearing  on  the  proposition 
to  be  established.  But  if  the  writer  can  bring  forward  his  own 
experience,  after  such  long  and  thorough  trials  as  he  has  made 
in  regard  to  this  matter,  then  the  conclusion  to  which  he  has 
come  would  seem  to  be  stable.  Accordingly,  we  may  (with  Hit- 
zig)  point  thus  :  Wflfc®.  That  the  Inf.  const,  of  this  verb,  in  seve- 
ral cases,  omits  the  usual  final  n,  and  is  pointed  as  a  regular  verb, 
is  clear  from  Gen.  50:  20  ;  Prov.  21 :  3  ;  Ps.  101  :  3  (Mowed  by 
a  Gen.),  and  Exod.  18 :  18,  where  the  very  form  in  question 
occurs  with  a  suffix,  in  the  same  manner  which  is  now  proposed. 
We  then  obtain  for  the  meaning:  the  doing  of  him,  i.  e.,  what 
he  did.  The  *TC5»  nx  of  course  is  in  the  Ace,  and  is  dependent 
on  rto*  implied.  So :  [He  shall  do]  what  long  ago  was  his 
[the  king's]  doings.  In  other  words :  He  may  repeat  the  ex- 
periment, but  can  never  alter  the  conclusion,  for  he  can  never 
repeat  it  to  any  better  advantage.  Consequently,  the  conclusion 
indicated  by  the  first  clause  must  remain  unshaken.  Heiligstedt, 
in  his  recent  commentary,  comes  out  with  this  strange  result :  '  I 
compared  wisdom  and  folly,  in  order  to  know  what  sort  of  a  fool- 
ish man  he  would  be  who  should  succeed  the  king,  in  compari- 


ECCLESIASTES    II.   13,14.  101 

son  with  him  ("nm  nx)  whom  they  long  ago  made  king;'  which 
he  explains  by  saying,  that  the  design  is  to  point  out  Rehoboam, 
the  successor  of  Solomon,  who  was  long  ago  made  king,  and  who, 
as  he  strongly  suspects,  will  overturn  his  father's  wise  institu- 
tions. This  seems,  to  me  at  least,  to  be  almost  "  a  new  thing 
under  the  sun."  And  yet  he  even  has  the  assurance  to  say,  at 
the  close :  "  No  one  of  the  other  interpretations  of  this  verse 
aptum  sensum  habet."  But  to  refute  his  interpretation  would  be 
little  less  than  a  loss  of  time,  and  to  small  purpose,  since  the  lan- 
guage and  drift  of  sentiment  in  the  text  are  so  utterly  .at  va- 
riance with  him.  Hitzig  has  ably  defended  the  sentiment  which 
I  have  given  above. 

From  the  view  thus  taken  of  sagacity  or  wisdom,  considered  in 
respect  to  its  power  of  conferring  solid  and  lasting  happiness,  the 
writer  turns,  for  a  moment,  to  the  consideration  of  the  natural 
and  essential  difference  between  wisdom  and  folly  in  themselves 
considered,  or  viewed  merely  in  respect  to  their  proper  nature. 
This  difference  he  has  expressed  in  the  sequel. 

(13)  I  saw,  moreover,  that  there  is  an  excellence  of  wisdom  over  folly, 
like  the  excellence  of  light  over  darkness. 

In  taking  another  view  of  the  matter,  he  felt  himself  com- 
pelled to  yield  to  the  superior  claims  of  wisdom,  in  respect  to  its 
nature.  It  gives  insight  into  things,  and  explains  many  of  them 
which  must  remain  dark  to  folly.  —  yrtti?  profit,  excellence,  lit. 
something  over  and  above.  —  "pa  in  comparison  with,  more  than, 
over.  The  light  and  the  darkness  are  both  specific  and  monadic 
objects,  to  which  the  article  is  properly  prefixed,  ad  libitum 
scriptoris  ;  in  English  it  is  quite  useless  here.  The  preeminence 
asserted  is  illustrated  and  confirmed  by  the  next  verse. 


(14)  The  eyes  of  the  wise  man  are  in  his  head,  but  the  fool  walkcth  in 
darkness ;  yet  still  I  know,  even  I,  that  one  destiny  awaits  them  all. 

14* 


162  ECCLESIASTES    11.15,16. 

To  say  that  one's  eyes  are  in  his  head,  means  that  his  eyes  are 
in  their  proper  place,  and  will  be  appropriately  employed,  i.  e.,  in 
seeing.  But  the  fool,  who  has  no  mental  eye,  who  is  'zb  'pjg, 
must  of  course  walk  in  darkness.  So  far  as  there  is  naturally  a 
"p-r.?  then,  it  is  on  the  side  of  the  wise  man ;  for  who  does  not 
prefer  light  to  darkness  ?  Yet  the  latter  part  of  the  verse  dashes 
down,  in  the  main,  the  hopes  which  any  one  might  be  inclined  to 
cherish,  from  the  circumstance  of  the  essential  difference  be- 
tween the  two.  One  destiny  awaits  all ;  i.  e.,  they  have  after  all 
a  common  lot ;  all  are  subject  to  toil  and  suffering  and  death,  to 
loss  of  property,  loss  of  friends,  and  loss  of  hopes.  —  fi^P?,  over- 
take, happen  to.  —  D^3  all  of  them,  viz.,  both  the  wise  and  foolish. 
The  Hholem  in  \o  goes  into  the  short  vowel  Qibbuts  in  the  suff. 
state,  §  9.  10.  3. 

(15)  Then  I  said  in  my  heart :  As  is  the  destiny  of  the  fool,  so  also  will  it 
happen  to  myself;  and  why  then  should  I  be  wise  overmuch'?  Then  said 
I  in  my  heart :  This  also  is  vanity. 

*:x  I,  prefixed  to  the  verb  which  has  the  suff.  of  the  same  pro- 
noun. ^3  —  me,  after  a  preceding  ^5X,  is  a  construction  which  we 
cannot  imitate.  The  force  of  it,  however,  is  expressed  in  the 
translation  myself.  It  makes  the  word  me  very  emphatic.  See 
the  like  in  Gen.  24:  27;  Ezek.  33:  17,  al.  saepe.  —  IX  then, 
Hitzig  remarks,  refers  to  the  close  of  life,  when  all  his  experience 
has  been  had.  But  it  is  enough  to  assume  a  point  when  his  con- 
victions are  full.  This  also  is  vanity,  viz.,  the  strife  to  become 
overmuch  wise,  i.  e.,  wiser  than  all  others.  I  take  "TOM*  (o)  to  be 
here  only  the  sign  of  quotation,  like  on  in  Greek.  The  next 
verse  adds  a  new  reason  for  the  conclusion  to  which  he  has  come. 


(10)  For  to  the  wise  man  with  the  fool  there  is  no  remembrance  forever, 
because  that  long  since  (in  days  that  are  to  come)  every  one  is  forgotten. 
And  how  dicth  the  wise  man  like  the  fool ! 

In  the  phrase  with  the  fool,  d5  with  designates  not  merely  a 


ECCLESIASTES    II.   17,18.  1C3 

communion  of  association,  but  lot  or  condition.  We  might  trans- 
late as  well  as,  or  as,  see  Lex.  CjS1,  B.  1.  e.  —  bfewi  .  .  .  .  "pi*  = 
never,  so  that  we  might  translate :  There  never  will  be  any  re- 
membrance. The  *ins  long  ago,  long  since,  applies  to  a  stand- 
point in  future  time,  during  days  that  are  to  come,  as  this  future 
is  expressed  in  the  Hebrew.  That  is,  in  future  time  the  day  will 
arrive  when  both  the  wise  and  the  foolish  will  have  been  long  for- 
gotten.—  D^xari  Brajtt  are  the  Ace.  of  time,  §  116.  2. —  SpK  for 
rQtK,  made  up  of  ix  and  J-.3  quo  modo,  how  or  alas  !  an  exclama- 
tion of  grief.  —  Fftaj  Imperf.,  to  designate  what  is  continued  or 
often  repeated.  The  consideration  of  such  a  matter  forces  a 
sigh  from  the  writer,  which  is  expressed  in  the  exclamation  that 
he  utters.  It  is  as  much  as  to  say  :  '  Alas  !  that  all  should  share 
the  same  destiny ! ' 

(17)  Then  I  hated  life,  for  the  deeds  that  were  done  under  the  sun  were 
odious  to  me ;  for  all  is  vanity  and  worthless  effort. 

The  phrase  *^s  S'n  lit.  means  an  evil  upon  me,  where  the  ^5? 
indicates  the  burdensome  consequence  of  the  evil,  lying  upon  him, 
or  pressing  him  down.  sn  is  by  no  means  confined  to  moral 
evil.  It  designates  anything  grievous  or  incommodious.  Deeds 
that  were  done,  viz.,  such  things  as  men  are  engaged  in  doing ; 
comp.  1 :  14.  The  doings  of  God  are  not  included  in  these.  To 
these  the  author  assigns  another  and  a  different  character ;  see 
3:  11,  14. 

(18)  Yea,  I  hated  all  the  toil  which  I  had  performed  under  the  sun,  he- 
cause  I  must  leave  it  to  the  man  who  shall  be  after  me. 

tyn9  means,  what  I  have  acquired  by  toil  here,  inasmuch  as 
this  only  could  be  inherited  by  posterity.  —  hny  Part,  for  verb, 
as  frequently  everywhere  in  this  book.  Moreover,  the  Part. 
best  designates  continued  action.  —  1Si1*3M  from  rj*U  with  suff., 
see  Lex.  in  Hiph.  B.     For  suff.,  see  Parad.  p.  289;  —  ",^TB§  in 


164  ECCLESIASTES    II.   19—21. 

Pause.     This  evil  of  transferring  to  another  the  fruits  of  toil,  is 
aggravated  by  another  circumstance,  which  he  proceeds  to  name. 

(19)  And  who  knoweth  whether  he  will  be  a  wise  man  or  a  fool  1  And 
yet  he  will  have  power  over  all  my  toil  which  I  have  performed,  and  on 
which  I  have  exercised  my  sagacity  under  the  sun.     This  too  is  vanity. 

The  1  before  bV$?  I  have  rendered,  as  the  sense  requires, 
by  and  yet  —  a  meaning  not  unfrequent  of  1..  The  two  verbs 
that  follow  might  be  well  rendered:  have  sagaciously  labored; 
§  139.  3.  That  a  fool  should  have  the  disposal  of  property  ac- 
quired by  sagacity,  makes  the  toil  doubly  a  vanity.  The  writer 
of  this  book  plainly  does  not  hold  fools  in  much  estimation.  For 
the  pointing  of  n  interrog.  in  tDann,  see  Lex.  H,  Note  d. 

(20)  Then  I  turned  to  make  my  heart  despair,  in  respect  to  all  the  toil 
which  I  had  performed  under  the  sun. 

■VYtaB.  is  turning  from  one  occupation  in  order  to  engage  in 
another,  while  1W  and  HDQ  mean,  turning  in  order  to  see  or  be- 
hold anything;  see  7 :  25 ;  1  Sam.  22:  18,  for  the  first  case. 
For  the  two  latter  verbs,  see  v.  12,  4 :  1,  7  ;  9  :  11.  Disappointed 
in  all  his  toil,  and  in  view  of  what  was  speedily  to  become  of 
that  which  he  had  acquired,  he  set  himself  to  despair  of  the  whole 
matter.  —  tt5«5  is  Inf.  Piel  of  1D&£ ;  for  form  see  §  63,  3.  His 
despair  he  proceeds  to  vindicate  by  the  mention  of  an  additional 
evil,  described  in  the  next  verse. 

(21 )  For  there  is  a  man  who  has  toiled  with  sagacity  and  intelligence,  and 
with  dexterity,  but  to  a  man  who  has  never  toiled  for  it  must  he  leave  his 
portion ;  this  too  is  vanity  and  a  sore  evil. 

The  idea  that  one  who  never  made  an  effort  to  acquire  is  to 
bear  rule  over  what  another  has  acquired  by  his  sagacious  and 
successful  toil,  is  very  grating  to  a  sensitive  mind.  It  gives  a 
despairing  aspect  to  human  effort.  The  writer  feels  it  deeply,  and 
names  it  ri2*i  PUPI,  an  intensity  of  expression  not  before  employed. 


ECCLESIASTES    II.  22-21.  165 

(22)  For  what  is  there  for  a  man  in  all  his  toil  and  the  strenuous  effort  of 
his  heart,  which  he  has  performed  under  the  sun  ? 

What  is  there,  etc.,  there  is  nothing  —  rrin  Part,  of  HJ%  later 
Hebrew,  or  Aramaean,  s=  rr>n.  —  ynsn  is  intensive  here,  as  it  is 
designed  to  be  climactic. 

(23)  For  all  his  days  are  grievous,  and  harassing  his  employment;  even 
by  night  his  heart  is  not  quiet.     This  too  is  vanity. 

Hitzig  and  Ewald  take  ">3  here  in  the  sense  of  truly,  surely  ;  a 
meaning  that  it  sometimes  has,  where  it  is  true,  or  it  is  so,  etc., 
may  be  easily  supplied.  If  the  preceding  question,  however,  is 
regarded  as  a  negative  (and  so  I  have  taken  it),  then  is  ^3 
causal,  as  it  assigns  a  good  reason  for  the  negative.  It  is,  in  one 
aspect,  a  new  suggestion.  The  question  might  be  asked, 
whether  men  might  not  enjoy  themselves  in  their  labor  and 
their  efforts  ?  The  verse  before  us  seems  to  answer  this  ques- 
tion :  All  his  days  are  sorrows,  i.  e«,  sorrowful,  grievous.  And 
vexation  or  harassing  his  employment ;  i.  e.,  instead  of  comfort 
and  ease,  his  efforts  have  been  sources  of  suffering  and  vexation. 
His  solicitude  will  not  even  let  him  sleep  at  night.  His  mind  is 
disquieted  with  plans  and  disappointments.  But  surely  this 
proposition  must  appertain  only  to  such  excessive  and  ambitious 
pursuits  as  make  life  a  bustle  and  a  scene  of  disquietude.  Oc- 
cupation, business,  of  some  kind  or  other,  is  essential  to  man's 
being,  or  at  least  to  his  well-being.  "Labor  ipse  voluptas." 
Coheleth,  then,  must  be  regarded  as  having  special  reference 
here  to  a  bustling  life,  engaged  in  by  reason  of  ambition  or  ava- 
rice, or  with  erroneous  expectations  of  finding  solid  and  lasting 
happiness  in  worldly  concerns. 

(24)  There  is  nothing  better  for  man,  than  that  he  should  eat  and  drink, 
and  enjoy  good  in  his  toil ;  even  this  I  have  seen,  that  it  is  from  the  hand  of 
God. 

The  shape  of  the  first  clause  shows  that  the  sense  is  such  as 


166  ECCLESIASTES    II.  25,26. 

I  have  expressed  in  the  version  above.  —  Sia  as  in  the  eompar. 
degree,  should  be  followed  by  a.  So  in  3 :  22,  mate1;  "TOSTCJ  aia 
teer  than  that  he  should  rejoice.  The  reading  required  here 
seems  to  be  ^5»*®o,  and  the  a  may  have  been  dropped  in  tran- 
scribing, because  another  £  immediately  precedes.  In  cnxri 
the  3  takes  the  same  place  which  !?  elsewhere  sometimes  occu- 
pies in  this  book;  6 :  12  ;  8  :  15.  So  is  it  with  2  in  3  :  12,  Da, 
for  them;  and  so  is  it  twice  with  3  in  10:  17.  Make  himself 
happy  in  his  toil,  lit.  make  his  soul  to  see  good.  Comp.  on  2  :  1. 
Even  this  (fit  fern,  and  neut.)  is  from  the  hand  of  God  ;  i.  e.,  even 
such  enjoyment  is  not  secured  by  our  own  efforts.  God  alone  be- 
stows all  blessings.  Without  his  favor  and  aid  all  human  efforts 
are  fen.     Comp.  3:  13  ;  5  :  18. 

(25)  For  who  can  eat,  and  who  can  enjoy  himself,  without  him  ? 

The  Heb.  text,  as  it  now  stands,  says,  in  the  last  clause,  more 
than  I?  That  is :  'Who  can  better  say  what  the  good  is  of 
eating,  etc.,  than  I,  who  have  had  so  much  experience,  and  en- 
joyed so  much  ? '  But  if,  with  the  Sept.,  Syr.,  Jerome,  Ewald, 
Heiligs.,  and  Hitzig,  we  adopt  the  reading  13BB,  without  him  (as 
I  have  done),  the  sense  is  seemingly  more  appropriate.  It  runs 
thus:  'Who  can  enjoy  the  good  of  his  labor  without  the  divine 
blessing  V  He  had  just  said,  that  to  God,  and  not  to  his  own 
efforts,  this  enjoyment  was  to  be  attributed.  This  latter  transla- 
tion, also,  better  suits  the  sense  of  WO,  which  means  extra,  with- 
out, i.  e.,  apart  from  him.  See  Lex.  for  tthn  and  also  "pH.  The 
union  of  yo  "pin  occurs  nowhere  else  in  Heb. ;  but  it  is  frequent 
in  the  Talmud,  and  among  the  Rabbins. 

(26)  For  to  the  man  who  is  well-pleasing  in  his  sight  hath  he  given 
sagacity,  and  intelligence,  and  enjoyment ;  but  to  the  sinner  hath  he  given 
the  task  of  gathering  and  amassing,  that  it  may  he  given  to  him  who  is  well- 
pleasing  in  the  sight  of  God.     This  too  is  vanity  and  fruitless  effort. 

Well-pleasing,  ato  does  not  mean  good  here  in  the  sense  of 


ECCLESIASTES    II.  26.  1G7 

holy,  but  designates  merely  the  idea  of  one  regarded  in  a  favor- 
able light ;  so  in  Neh.  2  :  5  ;  1  Sam.  29  :  6.  Of  course,  KBl'n,  the 
opposite  here  of  Sira,  means  in  this  case  one  who  is  offensive  to 
God ;  for  msA  is  of  course  implied  after  it.  —  tnnb  lit.  for  the  giv- 
ing, Inf.  of  ",na. 

But  what  is  it  which  is  vanity  and  a  fruitless  affair  ?  Surely, 
not  the  distribution  which  God  makes  ;  and  not  the  scraping  to- 
gether of  treasure,  for  this  has  already  been  denounced  in  vs.  17, 
18.  We  can  therefore  do  no  less  than  fall  back  on  v.  24,  and 
refer  it  to  the  effort  to  obtain  enjoyment  in  the  way  which  is 
there  spoken  of;  not,  indeed,  an  enjoyment  which  is  altogether 
satisfactory  in  itself,  but  only  such  as  is  more  promising  than 
that  obtained  by  other  efforts  and  pursuits.  But  even  this,  al- 
though the  portion  which  God  gives,  and  although  it  is  to  be 
gratefully  received,  is  still,  compared  with  good  which  is  great 
and  true  and  lasting,  little  less  than  vanity  and  a  fruitless  affair. 
Under  the  circumstances  before  us,  we  can,  of  course,  give  to 
these  last  words  here  only  a  limited  and  comparative  sense.  Ab- 
solute vanity  the  enjoyment  of  the  fruit  of  one's  labor  is  not ; 
but  in  comparison  with  the  enjoyment  which  a  rational  and  im- 
mortal being  is  capable  of,  in  comparison  with  a  happiness  unin- 
terrupted, solid,  and  lasting,  all  this  is  vanity. 

Thus  we  are  brought,  step  by  step,  after  passing  prominent 
particulars  in  review,  to  the  general  conclusion,  that  no  posses- 
sions or  pursuits  of  men  secure .  the  good  which  they  need  and 
seek  for,  and  that  the  most  we  can  make  out  of  all  these  is  the 
enjoyment  which  we  experience  from  the  actual  satisfying  of  the 
wants  and  cravings  of  our  physical  nature.  Even  this  is  not  the 
result  of  our  own  efforts  merely,  but  is  bestowed  upon  us  by  the 
special  favor  of  God. 

Sur-h  is  the  conclusion  of  a  most  acute  observer,  a  man  endowed  with  high 
intellectual  powers,  and  who  sought  for  wisdom  and  knowledge  in  all  the 
various  ways  practicable  at  the  time  when  he  lived.  Different,  we  may  well 
believe,  would  he  the  conclusions  of  the  same  investigator,  in  some  respects, 


1C8  ECCLESIASTES    II. 

and  to  a  certain  extent,  were  he  now  to  reappear  and  come  among  us,  and 
again  make  his  experiments.  In  his  day,  all  that  science  could  offer  of  satis- 
faction to  its  votaries,  was  meagre  indeed,  and  very  unsatisfactory  to  an  ac- 
tive and  inquisitive  mind.  The  ne  plus  ultra  would  soon  be  reached,  and 
might  well  be  called  vanity  and  an  empty  pursuit.  But  at  the  present  time 
the  same  inquirer  might  turn  in  scores  of  directions,  and  find  enough  busily 
to  engage  his  whole  life,  and  much  more,  in  any  one  of  the  numerous  sci- 
ences. Put  such  a  man  as  Coheleth,  at  the  present  time,  in  the  position  of  a 
Newton,  Laplace,  Liebig,  Cuvier,  Owen,  Linnaeus,  Davy,  Hamilton,  Hum- 
boldt, and  multitudes  of  other  men  in  Europe  and  in  America,  and  he 
would  find  enough,  in  the  pursuit  of  wisdom  and  knowledge,  to  fill  his  soul 
with  the  deepest  interest,  and  to  afford  high  mental  gratification,  "  To  eat, 
and  drink,  and  enjoy  the  good  of  one's  toil,"  while  it  is  always  a  grateful 
blessing,  would  not  even  be  named  in  comparison  with  pursuits  like  theirs. 
How  would  every  true  votary  of  science  now  look  down  on  mere  sensual 
gratifications  (important  and  even  necessary  as  they  might  be  in  their  proper 
place,  and  in  their  appropriate  measure),  compared  with  the  delight  which 
lie  would  experience  in  his  literary  and  scientific  pursuits  !  But  it  does  not 
follow  that  Coheleth  felt  wrongly  or  wrote  erroneously,  at  his  time,  in  respect 
to  these  matters  ;  his  conclusions,  made  in  view  of  his  experience,  are  alto- 
gether sober  and  correct,  although,  as  has  been  said,  if  they  had  been  made 
in  circumstances  such  as  ours,  his  estimate  of  the  pursuit  of  ivisdom  and 
knowledge  would  have  been  very  different  in  many  respects.  I  speak  in  this 
manner  only  in  reference  to  the  present  world,  and  the  means  of  promoting 
worldly  happiness  or  temporal  enjoyment.  But  if  we  take  a  stand  where 
we  must  look  beyond  this,  and  have  regard  to  the  immortal  soul  of  man  and 
the  happiness  of  the  world  to  come,  then  all  the  delights  of  even  science  and 
philosophy,  ardently  pursued,  dwindle  down  to  insignificance  in  comparison 
with  hope  animated  by  a  living  faith.  All  the  science  or  philosophy  of  the 
world  has  never  made,  and  would  not  and  could  not  make,  one  good  man,  in 
the  gospel-sense  of  this  word  ;  and  all,  therefore,  which  they  could  bestow 
on  us,  or  encourage  us  to  hope  for,  would  be  mere  vanity  of  vanities  in  com- 
parison with  the  possession  of  such  a  faith  and  such  a  hope. 

I  must  add  a  word  in  order  to  prevent  any  misconception  of  the  object  of 
these  remarks.  I  believe  Coheleth  to  be  one  of  the  genuine  books  of  the 
holy  Hebrew  Scriptures.  I  believe  it  to  have  been  in  the  Canon  of  the  Old 
Test,  when  this  was  sanctioned  by  Christ  and  his  apostles  ;  and  therefore, 
that  it  is  to  be  numbered  among  the  inspired  books.  But  inspired  books  may 
have  a  plan  in  view,  and  carry  one  into  execution,  as  well  as  other  books. 
The  Book  of  Jo!)  has  a  plan  ;  and  the  Book  of  Proverbs,  and  that  of  Canti- 


ECCLESIASTES    II.  1G9 

cles,  have  each  a  plan  at  their  basis.  I  take  the  plan  of  Coheleth  to  be,  a  re- 
lation of  what  passed  in  the  mind  of  a  reasoning  man  of  his  time,  a  man  ardent 
in  the  pursuit  of  finding  out  what  are  the  principal  means  of  happiness  in  the 
present  world,  and  hoiv  one  must  demean  himself  amidst  the  incidents  and  trials 
of  life,  in  order  to  secure  some  good  degree  of  enjoyment  and  preserve  a  conscience 
void  of  offence.  That  the  author  has  a  deep  and  abiding  sense  of  the  divine 
power,  and  sovereignty,  and  wisdom,  and  goodness,  is  everywhere  apparent 
(see  Introd.  §  2,  p.  30  seq.).  Not  a  word,  amid  all  his  complaints,  respecting 
the  vanity  and  uncertainty  of  terrestrial  things  ;  not  one  word  in  derogation 
of  a  superintending  Providence;  not  a  word  of  apology  for  mistrust  or  want 
of  submission.  But  all  this  is  the  result  of  conclusions  to  which  experience 
had  led  him  when  he  sat  down  to  write  his  book.  Yet  still,  while  he  gives 
us  these  conclusions,  he  tells  us  also,  at  the  same  time,  of  the  doubts  and 
difficulties  with  which  he  had  to  struggle  in  his  own  mind  before  he  came  to 
them.  He  lays  open  to  our  view  the  process  through  which  he  had  passed. 
The  book  is,  in  fact,  a  kind  of  monologue,  or  self-dialogue.  The  mind,  in 
some  past  attitude,  has  suggested  things  which,  in  themselves,  arc  far  from 
being  correct  and  true ;  but,  in  another  and  better  attitude,  it  now  suggests 
things  which  remove  doubts,  or  at  least  extract  from  objections  their  sting, 
and,  in  many  cases,  even  annul  all  their  force.  One  must  hear  him  to  the 
close  before  he  can  fully  decide  what  his  creed  was  ;  for  he,  like  Paul,  often 
introduces  the  objector  to  his  doctrines,  without  giving  any  notice  that  he  is 
going  to  do  so.  The  objections  with  which  he  has  struggled  are  related,  and 
in  due  time  are  answered ;  not,  it  may  be,  in  our  way  of  attack  and  defence, 
under  the  guidance  of  modern  systematized  logic  and  method,  but  in  a  way 
altogether  accordant  with  the  taste  and  genius  of  the  Hebrews.  If,  now,  the 
interpreter  undertakes  to  make  orthodoxy  out  of  these  objections,  which  are 
contrary  to  it,  then  surely  he  undertakes  a  task  which  is  desperate  indeed. 
But  if  he  allows  the  writer  to  present  a  picture  of  the  operations  of  his  own 
mind,  when  in  a  doubting  and  inquiring  state,  then  he  must  concede  to  him 
the  right  of  presenting  the  objections  which  once  wrought  upon  him,  and 
filled  him  with  perplexity.  From  this  poison  he  now  extracts  potent  medi- 
cine. He  settles  down,  at  last,  on  a  solid  and  immovable  basis,  not  likely  to 
be  again  shaken.  But  one  must  follow  him  through  his  book,  with  his  eye 
on  all  this,  before  he  can  fully  attain  to  the  writer's  ultimatum. 

This  picture  of  a  struggling  mind,  which  comes  off  triumphantly  at  last, 
and  settles  down  on  "  fearing  God,  and  keeping  his  commandments,"  as  the 
way  to  happiness,  and  as  the  sum  of  human  duty,  will  be  felt,  by  multitudes 
of  like  struggling  and  inquiring  minds,  to  be  a  resemblance  of  what  passes 
within  themselves.     They  may  therefore  draw  from  the  contemplation  of 

15 


170  ECCLESIASTES    III.   1. 

such  a  picture,  much  important  instruction.  But  to  make  it  truly  interesting 
and  profitable,  it  must  be  placed  in  an  appropriate  light,  and  contemplated 
from  an  advantageous  station. 

Thus,  in  reviewing  the  ground  so  far  passed  over,  we  must  look  at  the 
writer  in  the  state  in  which  he  truly  was,  with  regard  to  the  pursuit  of  wis- 
dom and  knowledge,  in  order  to  sympathize  with  him  in  respect  to  the  ac- 
quisition of  these.  In  our  day,  the  pleasure  or  good  that  towers  high  above 
all  other  mere  worldly  enjoyments  and  pursuits,  and  ranks  as  inferior  only 
to  true  piety,  is  the  pursuit  of  knowledge.  This  is  the  high  prerogative  of 
man  ;  his  excellence  above  all  the  creation  around  him.  It  would  be  impos- 
sible for  us  now  to  reason  as  Coheleth  seems  to  do,  in  respect  to  this  ;  and 
equally  impossible  to  deny  the  truth  of  what  he  said,  at  the  time  when  he 
wrote  the  book  which  bears  his  name.  And  even  now,  the  spirit  of  what  he 
said  is  applicable  to  all  science  and  all  knowledge  of  a  mere  worldly  nature, 
when  we  bring  them  into  competition  with  that  knowledge  which  concerns 
the  life  to  come.  "  This  is  eternal  life,  to  know  thee,  the  only  true  God,  and 
Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  hast  seat." 

We  have  no  good  ground,  then,  in  view  of  the  whole,  to  take  offence  at 
what  Coheleth  has  here  advanced.  He  turns  it  all,  at  last,  to  good  and 
proper  account.  He  shows,  in  a  vivid  and  impressive  manner,  how  impos- 
sible it  is  for  the  world,  and  all  which  is  therein,  to  give  enduring  peace  and 
joy  to  the  soul  of  man,  which  the  inspiration  of  the  Almighty  has  breathed 
into  him,  and  thus  exalted  him  to  a  rank  that  makes  him  aspire  to  something 
more  elevated,  more  holy,  and  better  than  all  which  the  world  can  bestow. 


§  5.  Dependence  on  Providence  of  Everything  which  can  happen, 
or  be  done,  or  enjoyed.  All  is  fixed  and  immutable,  beyond 
any  Change  by  the  Power  of  Man. 

Chap.  III.  1.— 15. 

[The  prolonged  title  given  above  shows  the  nature  of  the  next  section. 
Vs.  24 — 26  of  chap.  ii.  above  give  express  intimation  that  whatever  good 
there  is  to  be  enjoyed  results  from  the  interposition  and  favor  of  God.  The 
mind  of  the  writer  seems  to  be  conducted  by  those  thoughts  to  the  contem- 
plation of  the  extent  to  which  this  interposition  ^oes.  It  extends,  in  his  view, 
to  everything.  All  events,  and  all  the  actions  and  efforts  of  men,  are  under 
the  surveillance  and  guidance  of  a  Being  who  is  wise  and  good;   vs.  1 — 8. 


ECCLESIASTES    III.    1-3.  171 

God  has  given  employment  to  men  ;  lie  baa  given  them  intelligence  to  dis- 
cern his  works;  and  he  has  made  these  his  arrangements  permanent.  That 
they  have  any  enjoyment,  comes  from  him,  and  is  to  he  viewed  as  his  gift. 
God  has  prescribed  hounds  to  all  these  things,  which  we  can  neither  enlarge 
nor  diminish,  tor  the  purpose  of  inspiring  men  with  reverence,  and  awe  of 
him.  He  steadily  pursues  his  course,  and  causes  the  circle  of  events,  once 
gone  over,  to  he  renewed,  so  that  all  may  recognize  his  continual  providence, 
and  know  what  they  are  to  expect  from  the  invariable  course  of  things  which 
he  has  established;  vs.  9 — 15.] 

( 1 )  To  everything  there  is  an  appointed  time,  and  a  season  for  every 
undertaking. 

Vsb  to  everything,  i.  e.,  as  the  sequel  shows,  to  all  human  ac- 
tions and  conditions.  The  article  (which  the  pointing  b  shows) 
is  employed  because  of  totality,  like  to  -nav. — '"Cl,  used  only 
here  and  Neh.  2:6;  Esth.  9  :  27,  31.  It  designates  a  defined,  ap- 
pointed, or  certain  time.  —  ns?  means  specially  opportune  season 
or  time.  —  VSH,  negotium,  business,  undertaking.  In  this  sense  it 
belongs  rather  to  the  later  Hebrew.  The  sentiment  is,  that  the 
when  and  the  where  of  all  actions  and  occurrences  are  constituted 
and  ordained  of  God.  They  are  not  within  the  power  of  man, 
and  cannot  be  controlled  by  him.  What  is  thus  announced  here 
in  the  way  of  a  general  proposition,  is  confirmed  by  the  particu- 
lars that  follow  in  vs.  2 — 8.  The  series  of  them  begins  with 
*the  birth  and  death  of  every  man,  and  proceeds  with  recounting 
some  of  the  more  striking  actions  and  occurrences  of  human  life. 

(2)  A  time  for  birth,  and  a  time  for  death;  a  time  to  plant,  and  a  time  to 
pluck  up  that  which  is  planted. 

rYib,  Inf.  nominascens,  birth  ;  indicating,  however,  parturition 
by  the  mother,  and  not  =  ibjrt,  Inf.  pass,  being  born.  The  b 
prefix  prep,  in  both  cases  is  so  pointed  because  it  stands  before 
a  tone-syllable  ;  see  Lex.  b.  What  birth  and  death  are  to  man, 
planting  and  being  plucked  up  are  to  plants  and  trees. 

(3)  A  time  to  kill,  and  a  time  to  heal;  a  time  to  break  down,  and  a  time 
to  build  up. 


172  ECCLESIASTES    III.  4-7. 

The  killing  and  healing  relate  to  men  ;  the  pulling  down  and 
building  up  have  respect  to  structures,  such  as  houses,  etc. ;  what 
the  former  doings  are  to  men,  the  latter  are  to  edifices,  etc. 

(4)  A  time  to  weep,  and  a  time  to  laugh ;  a  time  to  mourn,  and  a  time  to 
dance. 

Weeping  and  mourning  stand  connected  with  the  dying  and 
killing  of  the  preceding  verses.  Laughing  and  dancing  are 
exhibitions  of  mirth,  and  stand  opposed  to  mourning.  —  Tip"!  in- 
stead of  rrab,  because  of  its  assonance  with  lisp.  The  h  is  omit- 
ted before  the  last  two  Infinitives  for  the  sake  of  variety  in  the 
construction. 

(5)  A  time  to  cast  abroad  stones,  and  a  time  to  gather  up  stones ;  a  time 
to  embrace,  and  a  time  to  remove  from  embracing. 

Probably,  the  first  half  of  the  verse  refers  to  casting  stones,  by 
an  invading  enemy,  over  arable  land,  in  order  to  render  it  unfit 
for  cultivation  (see  2  K.  3:  19,  25);  to  gather  them  up,  is  to 
restore  the  land  again  to  its  useful  state  ;  see  Is.  5:2.  —  p*nn 
probably  designates  amorous  embrace  ;  comp,  Prov.  5  :  20.  To 
refrain  from  this  in  due  time  is  necessary,  if  one  would  guard 
against  enervating  indulgence. 

(6)  A  time  to  seek,  and  a  time  to  lose ;  a  time  to  preserve,  a  time  to  cast 
away. 

To  seek,  viz.,  with  the  prospect  of  finding ;  which  is  the  oppo- 
site of  what  follows.  —  As  laat  in  Kal  is  intrans.  and  sometimes 

-    T 

means,  to  be  lost,  so  Piel  (lax)  means,  to  lose  anything.  The 
translation  by  destroy  here  interferes  with  vs.  2,  3,  inasmuch 
as  it  would  thus  make  a  virtual  repetition. 

(7)  A  time  to  rend,  and  time  to  sew  together;  a  time  to  be  silent,  and  a 
time  to  speak. 

The  rending  probably  refers  to  the  rending  of  garments,  on 
the  receipt  of  bad  news,  or  on  the  part  of  mourners.     The  sewing 


ECCLESIASTES    III.  8-11.  173 

together  is  mending  such  rents,  t.  e.y  it  indicates  the  time  when 
mourning  is  past.  The  time  to  be  silent  probably  refers  to  silence 
observed  through  excessive  grief;  see  Job  2:  13.  Of  course, 
the  time  to  speak  designates  the  period  when  that  excess  is  past, 
and  speaking  is  resumed. 

(8)  A  time  to  love,  and  a  time  to  hate;  a  time  of  war,  and  a  time  of 
peace. 

From  hatred  proceeds  war.  Peace  follows  war,  at  last ;  and 
with  this  the  author  ends  his  list  of  particulars.  He  has  marked 
it,  moreover,  by  adopting  nouns  in  the  last  couplet,  instead  of  the 
Inf.  mode,  which  is  employed  in  all  the  cases  preceding.  He 
now  resumes  his  general  declaration,  so  often  made  respecting 
things  which  he  had  tried  by  experience. 

(9)  What  is  the  advantage  of  the  doer,  in  that  for  which  he  has  toiled  1 

It  was  for  the  sake  of  raising  this  question,  and  of  the  answer 
which  it  elicits,  that  he  introduced  the  preceding  list  of  doings 
and  occurrences,  which  are  prominent  among  human  efforts  and 
affairs.  He  proceeds  immediately  to  the  answer.  —  rtiMJri,  parti- 
cipial noun,  doer,  having  the  article. 

(10)  I  have  considered  the  task  which  God  hath  given  to  the  sons  of  men, 
to  busy  them  therewith. 

All  these  things  in  which  men  are  engaged,  and  by  which  they 
are  affected,  proceed  from  divine  arrangements.  Nothing  can 
be  done  out  of  the  time  allotted  by  God,  and  all  must  be  done  or 
take  place  when  his  time  comes.  So,  more  clearly,  in  what 
follows. 

(11 )  Everything  hath  he  made  beautiful  in  its  season;  moreover,  he  hath 
put  intelligence  in  their  heart,  without  which  no  man  can  find  out  the  work 
that  God  doeth,  from  beginning  to  end. 

The  idea  here  depends  mainly  on  the  interpretation  given  to 
&o  TOK  ^SH3.  I  cannot  assent  to  most  of  the  recent  translations 
of  this,  although  by  the  hand  of  masters.     Ges. :  so  that  not  ; 

lo* 


174  ECCLESIASTES    III.   11. 

Herzfeldt,  that  not ;  Knobel,  without  that ;  Ewald,  only  that  not 
—  none  of  which  can  well  be  made  out  from  the  language.  If 
'fcaa  means  not,  then  how  could  the  J&  follow  ?  *}a  of  itself  may- 
mean  without,  as  in  Job  21 :  9  ;  Jer.  2:  15;  48:  45,  al.  But  fa 
has  many  other  meanings.  In  order  to  make  the  privative  mean- 
ing certain  here,  *»ba  seems  to  be  added  ;  but  *>ba  is  merely  an  ac- 
cessory, and  not  the  leading  part  of  the  word.  For  "»!baa  as  mean- 
ing without,  see  also  Zeph.  3:6;  Job  6:6  —  very  plain  cases. 
In  the  same  way  "px  is  put  after  a ,  when  it  means  without,  see  Is. 
5  :  9.  Cases  of  i^aa  where  the  a  means  on  account  of,  because  of, 
such  as  in  Ex.  14:  11 ;  2  K.  1 :  3,  do  not  compare  with  the  case 
now  before  us.  Only  that  would  in  Heb.  be  •o  asx  ,  and  cannot 
be  expressed  by  "USX  ^aa ;  see  Amos  9:8;  Judg.  4 :  9 ;  2  Sam. 
12:  14,  al.  The  writer  could  not  say  V^aa  (as  Ges.  intimates  in 
Thes.),  in  order  to  designate  without,  for  *>ba  admits  of  no  suffix. 
He  could  not  well  employ  IttJKa,  because  the  word  would  then 
present  a  sense  doubtful  at  first  view.  It  seems,  then,  that  ^baa 
•TCJa:  is  the  most  plain  and  specific  of  all.  Indeed,  we  may  come 
to  the  meaning  without,  in  another  way.  Lit.  ^laK  ^aa  means 
from  the  lack  of  which,  or  by  reason  of  the  failure  of  which,  which 
is  =  without  which.  This  fully  vindicates  the  translation,  and 
is  satisfactorily  sustained  by  Zeph.  3:6;  Job  6 :  6.  But  to 
what  does  lira  relate  ?  Not  to  tab,  surely,  but  to  aVssn ;  to  which 
some  such  sense  must  of  course  be  attached,  as  will  make  it  des- 
ignate the  organ  or  instrument  employed  in  acquiring  a  knowl- 
edge of  what  God  has  done. 

cbi>  (or  rather  abis>)  is  a  frequent  word,  always  bearing  the 
sense  of  remote  or  obscure  or  indefinite  time  or  age,  past  or  future, 
except  in  this  place.  Much  controversy  has  been  made  about 
the  meaning  here.  The  Sept.  and  Aquila  translate  it  by  aiuv ; 
the  Vulg.  and  some  moderns,  by  mundus  ;  Bauer,  Rosenm.,  Mich, 
et  al.,  by  eternity  ;  Ges.,  De  Wette,  Knobel,  by  Weltsinn,  or  mun- 
dorum  rerum  studium,  which  may  mean  a  love  for  or  attachment  to 
the  world,  or  the  desire  of  searching  out  or  investigating  worldly 


ECCLESIASTES    III.   11.  175 

things.  But  in  the  some  three  hundred  or  more  examples  of  dV* 
in  the  Heb.  Scriptures,  not  one  of  them  approaches  such  a  sense 
as  world  or  world-sense  ;  and  plainly  it  is  the  mere  offspring  of  a 
supposed  exigent ia  loci.  What  is  more  still,  it  disagrees  with  the 
contex.  6bi>  must,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  be  something  with- 
out which  men  cannot  investigate  the  works  of  God,  and  some- 
thing therefore  with  which  they  can  investigate  them.  But  a  Welt- 
sinn (world-sense)  cannot  aid  in  such  an  investigation,  if  we  un- 
derstand by  it  love  of  the  world;  and  as  to  a  desire  of  searching 
out  worldly  things,  even  the  German  word  (  Weltsinn)  cannot 
well  have  this  meaning,  and  mu^h  less  can  nbr  have  it.  But  even 
if  it  be  admitted,  it  would  be  incongruous.  The  searching  after 
worldly  things  is  not  the  way  of  finding  out  the  works  of  God 
from  the  beginning  to  the  end.  Gesenius  (in  Thes.)  renders : 
"  God  hath  put  into  their  heart  the  desire  of  worldly  things,  so 
that  man  cannot  find  out,"  etc.  Here  man  is  represented  as  being 
hindered  by  his  Weltsinn  (studium  mundanum),  instead  of  being 
aided  by  it ;  and  the  Divine  Being  is  brought  before  us  as  giving 
to  man  such  a  worldliness  of  mind  as  to  defeat  his  efforts  to  ac- 
quire knowledge  ;  —  a  degrading  view  of  Providence,  which  can- 
not well  be  put  to  the  account  of  Coheleth.  To  translate  by 
world  simply,  is  liable  to  the  same  objection ;  for  it  either  has  no 
tolerable  sense  in  itself,  or  else  it  has  one  wholly  inappropriate, 
viz.,  love  of  the  world.  To  translate  by  eternity  is  equally  incon- 
gruous, in  case  we  render  i<b  ibx  hb^a  by  so  that  not ;  for  if  eter- 
nity here  means  (as  it  must  if  it  have  any  tolerable  sense)  eterni- 
tatis  studium,  then  this  would  aid,  investigation,  instead  of  being 
given  to  defeat  it.  If  eternity  simply  be  meant,  then  no  appro- 
priate sense  whatever  can  be  elicited  from  it. 

Another  and  different  rendering  has,  in  view  of  these  difficul- 
ties, been  proposed  by  Gaab,  Spohn,  and  recently  by  Hitzig. 
This  is  intelligence,  or  the  active  faculty  of  knowing.    To  justify  this 

0 

they  resort  to  the  Arabic  j^JLc  =  obs?,  meaning  wisdom,  under- 


176  ECCLESTASTES    III.  11. 

standing,  etc. ;  which  is  altogether  appropriate.  In  Ex.  36:2, 
we  have  ia!?a  FTOsri  ",23  in  just  the  same  way,  and  probably  with 
the  same  meaning.  That  the  Heb.  word,  as  now  written,  was 
not  designed  to  bear  the  usual  sense,  seems  probable  from  the 
form  itself.  In  some  two  hundred  and  ten  cases  of  dVis>,  eternity, 
age,  the  i  is  inserted  throughout.  In  fourteen  cases  with  the  ar- 
ticle, only  one  (1  Chron,  16 :  36)  besides  that  before  us  omits  the 
i.  It  is  only  when  an  accessory  syllable  follows  (as  in  E^bi?, 
i^abi?)  that  the  i  is  left  out,  as  in  1 :  10;  12 :  5.  In  Ecc.  we  have, 
excepting  such  cases  as  those,  and  also  the  one  before  us,  always 
the  form  laVis  ;  see  1 :  4 ;  3  :  14;  9 :  6.  Is  it  not  fair,  then,  to  draw 
the  conclusion,  that  in  the  case  before  us  i  is  designedly  omitted, 
in  order  to  advertise  the  reader  of  a  different  meaning  ?  The 
punctators,  indeed,  read  and  pointed  it  as  =  dbis> .  But  the  pas- 
sage seems  not  to  have  been  understood  by  them,  and,  being  in 
doubt,  they  followed  the  common  analogy.  I  hesitate  not  to  pre- 
fer (with  Hitzig)  the  pointing  bbs,  as  the  Masorites  are  of  no 
binding  authority.  Gesenius  and  Heiligst.  disclaim  the  meaning 
of  intelligence,  because  such  a  case  as  this  is  nowhere  else  to  be 
found  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  But  where  else  do  they  find 
their  admitted  sense  of  mundus  in  Heb.  ?  It  is  only  in  the  late 
Talmud  and  among  the  Rabbins,  that  this  can  be  found.  Of  course 
one  may  make  the  same  objection  against  their  view  as  they  make 
against  ours.  Ges.  also  says  that  it  can  in  no  way  be  rendered 
probable  that  "ids  ijjasi  ever  means  without.  The  examples 
given  above  fully  disprove  this,  and  show  plainly  that  it  some- 
times does  so  mean :  and  the  context  shows  that  fibiJ,  in  the 
sense  of  studium  mundanum,  is  wholly  inapposite.  That  we  may 
resort  to  a  kindred  dialect,  as  to  the  Arabic  here,  to  illustrate  the 
meaning  of  a  word  which  common  Heb.  analogy  does  not  ex- 
plain, is  conceded  on  all  hands,  and  is  often  done.  There  are  a 
goodly  number  of  words  in  Hebrew  which  are  best  illustrated  in 
this  way. 

In  further  confirmation  of  this  view,  we  may  refer  to  Sir.  6 : 


ECCLESIASTES    III.   11.  177 

22,  2o<£ia  yap  Kara  to  ovo/xa  avTrjs  io~TL,  koX  ov  7roAAots  Icttl  cpav- 
epd,  i.  e.,  For  wisdom  is  according  to  her  name,  and  is  not  man- 
ifest to  many."  The  name  then,  here  alluded  to,  must  of  course 
be  a  name  indicating  some  concealed  or  hidden  thing.  Plainly, 
there  is  an  allusion  here  to  Job  28  :  20,  21,  which  runs  thus: 
"  Whence  does  wisdom  come  ?  And  where  is  the  place  of  un- 
derstanding? For  she  is  concealed  from  the  eyes  of  all  the 
living."  Here  the  word  concealed  is  in  Heb.  Fra^SEI,  from  zb-j,  to 
conceal.  The  declaration  of  Sirach,  that  according  to  her  name 
she  is  not  manifest  =  concealed,  seems  plainly  to  be  built  on  the 
verb  cby,  as  here  applied  to  her ;  and  this  of  course  is  the  root 
of  nbs>.  It  would  seem  that  Sirach  understood  this  noun,  which 
might  be  literally  rendered  concealment,  to  be  one  of  the  appel- 
lations of  wisdom.  It  is  a  significant  way  of  indicating  that  wis- 
dom is  something  recondite,  deep,  and  difficult  to  be  discerned. 
If  so,  it  gives  a  Heb.  interpretation  of  dbs  in  his  time,  and  helps 
to  illustrate  and  confirm  the  one  just  given. 

We  come  then  to  this  result :  '  God  has  made  everything  goodly 
or  appropriate  (fta?)  in  its  proper  time;  and  not  only  so,  but 
he  has  given  to  the  mind  of  man  intelligence,  without  which  no 
one  can  scan  the  work  which  he  has  done  from  the  beginning  to 
the  end/  In  other  words :  In  their  proper  season,  all  his  arrange- 
ments are  fitting  or  goodly,  and  he  has  enabled  men  to  find  out 
this  by  their  intelligence.  But  chap.  8:17  seems  to  gainsay  this  ; 
for  it  denies  that  men  can  seek  and  find  out  the  work  of  God. 
But  there  the  subject-matter  is  different.  The  writer  is  treating 
of  the  fact,  that  no  difference  is  made  between  the  righteous  and 
the  wicked  in  this  life,  and  that  one  and  the  same  destiny  awaits 
all.  This  mystery  is  too  deep  for  him.  He  declares  that  he 
cannot  find  it  out.  But,  in  our  text,  it  is  the  fitness  of  things  in 
their  appropriate  season  which  men's  understanding  can  search 
out  and  see.  Yea,  the  whole  course  of  things,  from  beginning  to 
end,  as  it  respects  this  matter,  may  be  understood  by  the  cbr, 
intelligence,  of  man.     If  one  is  not  satisfied  with  this  method  of 


3J8  ECCLESIASTES    111.12,13. 

conciliation,  he  may  betake  himself  to  another  mode  of  explana- 
tion, viz.,  that  the  writer,  in  3:11,  throws  out  an  erroneous  view, 
viz.,  that  of  an  objector,  which  is  corrected  in  the  progress  of  his 
work,  i.  e.,  in  8:  17.     So  Hitzig;  but  I  prefer  the  former. 

(12)  I  know  that  there  is  no  good  for  them,  except  to  rejoice  and  to  pro- 
cure happiness  during  their  lives. 

na,/or  them,  see  remarks  on  n'lxa  in  2  :  24 ;  a  and  h  are  not 
unfrequently  used,  in  the  like  sense,  in  the  later  Hebrew.  The 
plur.  suff.  refers  to  E'lXli ,  mankind,  in  the  preceding  verse,  which 
is  a  noun  of  multitude.     At  the  end  of  the  verse,  in  "pina,  is  a 

t  -  :  ' 

suff.  sing,  refering  to  the  same  noun  in  its  sing.  form.  —  ai», 
happiness  or  enjoyment,  as  usual  in  this  book.  —  a/itJ  fiibrb,  not 
to  do  good  in  a  moral  sense  (as  many  construe  it),  but  to  make, 
i.  e.,  to  acquire,  or  procure  happiness  ;  comp.  2  :  24;  3  :  22 ;  5  :  17  ; 
8:  15  ;  9  :  7,  which  make  this  meaning  clear.  Here  the  writer 
recapitulates  the  sentiment  already  expressed  in  2 :  24,  from 
which  he  started  in  this  present  section.  The  next  verse  is,  in 
like  manner,  a  repetition  of  2  :  246. 

(13)  And  moreover,  as  to  every  man  who  eateth,  and  drinketh,  and  enjoy- 
eth  good  in  all  his  toil,  the  gift  of  God  is  this. 

In  2  :  24  he  says:  This  is  from  the  hand  of  God. —  &^rj  this 
is.  —  Mna  noun  from  "jna  with  5  assimilated,  a  formative  a,  and 
the  fern,  ending  n.  So  entirely  dependent  are  we  on  the  Divine 
Being,  that  even  the  little  which  we  enjoy,  is  not  secured  by  our 
own  plans  and  efforts,  but  by  God's  own  arrangements.  He  has 
constituted  the  perpetual  circle  and  order  of  all  things.  We  can 
neither  hasten  nor  retard  his  designs.  We  can  neither  add  to  his 
work,  nor  diminish  from  it.  It  remains  ever  the  same.  He 
,11  things  evermore  at  his  own  disposal,  in  order  that,  from 
our  dependence  on  him  and  a  sense  of  our  own  weakness,  we 
may  regard  him  with  reverence.     So  the  sequel. 


ECCLESIASTES    III.  14,15.  179 

(14)  I  know  that  all  which  God  docth,  the  same  shall  continue  for  ever; 
to  it  there  is  no  addition,  and  from  it  there  is  no  excision  ;  and  God  so  docth, 
that  they  may  fear  before  him. 

It  shall  be  forever,  i.  e.,  his  doing  will  always  be  the  same.  No 
one  can  add  to  it  or  abridge  it.  lie  is  a  sovereign,  and  "  doeth 
all  things  after  the  counsel  of  his  own  will."  God  so  doeth,  lit. 
has  so  done  ;  but  as  he  remains  ever  the  same,  so  he  is  still  doing, 
and  will  continue  to  do,  the  same.  That  they  [men]  may  fear 
before  him  ;  not  in  order  that,  or  for  the  purpose  that,  but  he  is 
sovereign  and  uniform  in  his  doings  in  such  a  way  that  men  do 
and  will  fear  before  him,  or  have  reason  to  fear.  Fear,  in  Heb. 
usage,  when  it  has  respect  to  God,  implies  what  we  name  rever- 
ential awe.  The  construction  of  ■pBj  here  twice  before  the  Inf. 
made  with  b ,  is  rather  aside  from  the  common  usage.  Usually, 
it  stands  before  nouns,  pronouns,  and  participles  ;  but  sometimes 
before  the  Inf.  gerundial  or  Inf.  nominascens,  as  in  the  present 
case.  The  two  Infinitives  may  be  regarded  as  virtually  in  the 
Gen.  here;  §  113. 

(15)  That  which  is,  was  long  since;  and  that  which  is  to  come,  was  long 
since ;  and  God  seeketh  out  that  which  is  past. 

The  first  S-Pfi  here,  although  in  the  form  of  the  Praeter  tense, 
includes  &  present  sense  (as  the  Praet.  often  does),  viz.,  which 
was  and  is.  The  sequel  shows  this  to  be  necessary.  So,  what 
is  and  what  will  be,  happened  long  ago,  see  1 :  9,  10 ;  in  other 
words,  "  There  is  no  new  thing  under  the  sun."  God  seeketh 
out  that  which  is  passed,  5^3,  Part.  Niph.  of  tfTi,  which  means, 
to  follow  after,  to  chase  away.  The  idea  of  the  writer  is,  that 
one  thing  or  occurrence  follows  after  or  upon  another,  and  ex- 
pelling it  (so  to  speak),  occupies  its  place  or  rather  time.  What 
has  thus  been  thrust  away  by  more  recent  events,  God  seeks  out 
again,  t.  e.,  he  does  this  in  order  to  renew  and  repeat  it.  Thus 
the  generic  sentiment  of  the  first  two  clauses  is  developed  in  the 
last  clause.     And  this  completes  the  view  which  the  writer  takes 


180  ECCLESIASTES    III.    16. 

of  the  fixed,  established,  and  invariable  sequency  of  things  which 
God  has  ordained  in  the  world,  and  so  arranged  that  no  efforts 
or  toil  on  the  part  of  man  can  change  his  ordinances,  or  arrest 
the  course  of  things.  Man  is  thus  impressively  taught  hoiv  de- 
pendent he  is,  and  of  how  little  avail  it  is  to  repine  and  murmur 
at  the  irresistible  will  of  an  overruling  Providence. 

§  6.    Objections  against  the  Assertion  that  God  has  made  Every- 
thing goodly. 

Chap.  III.  16—22. 

[The  manner  in  which  this  section  commences  ("i^i),  shows  that  it  stands 
connected  Avith  the  preceding.  An  objection  to  a  previous  assertion,  that  all 
is  made  n£;  occurs  to  the  writer's  reflection,  viz.,  that  wicked  instead  of  good 
men  occupy  places  of  judgment.  The  answer  to  this  is,  that  such  things 
continue  only  for  a  time,  and  are  brought  speedily  under  inquisition.  Again, 
his  mind  suggests  to  him  that  there  is  one  and  the  same  lot  or  destiny  for 
man  and  beast.  That  all  die  alike ;  they  return  to  dust  alike  ;  and,  so  far 
as  wc  can  see,  we  cannot  discern  whether  the  spirit  of  man  goes  upward,  or 
the  spirit  of  a  beast  downward.  What  else  is  left  for  us,  in  this  predicament, 
but  to  enjoy  what  we  can  of  the  fruits  of  our  toil  ?  These  last  doubts  or  dif- 
ficulties, however,  are  but  partially  solved  here.  The  suggestion  is  made  at 
the  outset  (v.  18),  that  the  object  of  such  an  arrangement  is  to  try  men,  and 
see  whether  they  will  act  like  the  brutes,  which,  as  to  their  destiny,  they 
seem  so  much  to  resemble.  The  writer  gives  full  scope  to  the  doubt  or  dif- 
ficulty, without  further  answer  here  than  what  is  implied  in  the  assertion 
that  all  is  for  the  trial  or  exploration  of  them.  But  he  draws  from  the  state- 
ment thus  made  the  conclusion  that,  since  the  matter  of  fact  is  thus,  one 
must  do  what  he  has  repeatedly  advised  men  to  do  (2  :  24  ;  3  :  12,  13,  22  ; 
5  :  18  ;  8  :  15),  viz.,  enjoy  the  good  of  his  toil,  and,  at  all  events,  make  sure  of 
that.  So  much,  at  least,  can  be  said  with  propriety,  whether  we  know  or  do 
not  know  what  the  future  will  be.  The  general  view  and  conclusion  to 
which  he  ultimately  comes  is  not  given  here,  but  toward  the  close  of  his 
work.  Objections  (as  here)  arc  sometimes  brought  forward,  which  are  not 
immediately  and  fully  answered.     The  sequel  usually  develops  the  answer] 

(10)  And  further,  I  saw  under  the  sun  the  place  of  judgment,  there  was 
injustice  ;  even  the  place  of  justice,  there  was  injustice. 


ECCLESIASTES    III.   17.  181 

*ri5^l  shows  a  transition  to  another  subject,  and  has  reference 
to  v.  10,  which  commences  with  itWjfi.  —  Not  oipTa  alone  is  the 
object  of  the  preceding  verb,  but  the  thing  or  fact  described  in 
the  whole  verse,  viz.,  the  occupation  of  the  place  of  justice  by  in- 
justice. ttSttfa  means  here  both  power  of  deciding  and  obligation 
to  a  just  decision.  The  tribunal  is  occupied  by  Stth,  lit.  impro- 
bity, injustice  ;  here  the  latter,  because  it  stands  opposed  to  p^S, 
justice.  The  article  before  an  abstract  noun  is  a  very  common 
usage  in  Heb.,  §  107.  N.  1.  c.  That  the  concrete,  however,  viz., 
an  unjust  judge,  is  here  meant,  is  quite  plain.  The  spectacle  ad- 
verted to  is  one  to  which  this  book  frequently  adverts:  (4:1; 
5  :  8  ;  6  :  7  ;  8  :  9,  10)  ;  too  frequently  to  leave  us  at  liberty  to 
suppose  that  it  could  have  been  written  in  the  time  of  Solomon, 
when  such  things  did  not  occur ;  see  1  K.  10  :  24  ;  3  :  12  ;  13  :  28. 

(17)  I  said  in  my  heart,  the  righteous  and  the  wicked  God  will  judge; 
since  a  time  for  everything  and  for  every  work  he  hath  appointed. 

God  will  judge,  i.  e.,  he  will  pass  sentence  on  each  man  ac- 
cording to  his  deserts.  He  will  do  so,  because  he  has  appointed 
a  time  when  every  deed  and  work  will  be  judged.  In  most  of 
the  versions,  dd  is  regarded  as  an  adverb,  which  some  translate 
there,  and  some  then.  That  it  may  designate  either  time  or  place, 
is  familiar  to  every  reader  of  Hebrew.  But  if  it  mean  there, 
then  a  difficulty  is  easily  raised  by  asking,  where  ?  No  place 
.  has  been  adverted  to  in  the  context.  If  we  render  it  then,  we 
naturally  inquire,  of  course,  when  ?  No  time  has  yet  been  men- 
tioned, to  which  then  can  refer.  Besides,  if  there  be  the  mean- 
ing, d'j  should  be  placed  earlier  in  the  clause:  see  in  Ps.  36 :  13; 
53  :  G,  for  a  different  position.  There  are  other  difficulties,  more- 
over, which  are  serious,  P#  time  —  time  for  what  ?  Not  a  time 
appropriate  for  the  doing  of  any  or  every  action,  as  in  v.  1 ;  for 
this  would  be  merely  a  repetition  of  v.  1.  Besides,  that  there  is 
such  a  time,  would  not  help  to  prove  that  God  will  judge  the 
righteous  and  the  wicked.     Nor  can  time  here  mean  a  limited 

16 


182  ECCLESIASTES    III.    17. 

time  beyond  which  the  wicked  will  not  be  tolerated ;  for  then  it 
must  apply  to  the  righteous  as  well  as  the  wicked.  Such  a 
meaning  cannot  ever  be  urged  upon  VBrHsdJb  TV,  for  this  means 
opportunity  to  do  this  thing  or  that,  and  not  a  brief  space,  beyond 
which  doing  cannot  extend.  "We  must  seek,  then,  for  some  other 
meaning.  This  is  easily  found.  Houbigant,  Doderl.,  Van  der 
Palm,  and  Hitzig,  point  the  last  word  db  (not  dia  ),  which  means 
to  appoint,  constitute.  The  version  which  this  would  require  is 
given  above.  The  course  of  thought,  then,  runs  thus .  '  God 
will  judge  all  men,  for  he  has  appointed  a  time  [of  judgment] 
for  everything  which  they  do.'  This  gets  rid  of  all  the  doubt 
about  the  where  or  the  when.  The  only  difficulty  that  remains 
is,  whether  b  and  b?  can  well  mark  the  same  relations.  But 
this  too  is  easily  removed.  Ges.  (in  Lex.  bs,  4,  c. )  says  :  "  ]NTon 
raro  ponitur  pro  b  et  bx"  as  in  Esth.  3:9;  Job  33  :  23  ;  22  :  2  ; 
G  :  27 ;  19 :  5 ;  30  :  2  ;  33  :  27  ;  38  :  10,  al.  Of  course,  then,  we  need 
to  say  no  more  here,  than  that  by  is  employed  merely  in  the  way 
of  varying  the  diction.  But  in  this  way  of  construing  the  clause, 
it  follows  that  the  verb  db  is  rather  unusually  separated  from  its 
object  ns.  Yet  cases  of  the  like  kind  are  not  very  rare.  Time, 
i.  e.,  a  judgment-time,  is  made  emphatic  by  standing  first.  The 
greater  concinnity  of  the  meaning  thus  elicited  must  be  quite 
evident  to  all. 

But  when  is  this  M  =  opportune  time  to  come  1  Is  it  in  this  world,  or  in 
the  next?  Hear  Knobel :  "  The  last  judgment  one  must  not  here  think  of, 
but  hold  fust  to  the  idea  in  general  of  a  retribution  some  time  or  other  to  he 
made,"  i.  e.,  in  the  present  world.  Of  the  same  opinion  is  Hitzig,  Heiligstcdt, 
I)e  Wette,  Ges.,  and  many  others.  But  they  extend  the  same  rule  of  exe- 
gesis to  all  the  passages  in  the  Old  Test,  which  speak  of  a  divine  judgment 
respecting  the  doings  of  men.  Ileiligs.  has  appealed  to  more  than  twenty 
passages,  all  which  (and  many  more  besides),  as  he  says,  refer  only  to  the 
present  life.  Therefore  (such  is  his  reasoning),  Coheleth  knew  nothing  of 
•a /'a tun'  judgment  One  might  object  that  this  is  a  rum  sequitur  here;  bat 
still,  it  could  hardly  be  made  probable,  unless  the  language  is  very  cogent 
that  the   author   knew  ^o  much   more   than   all   his   fellow  Hebrews.     That 


ECCLESIASTES    III.   17.  183 

there  are  things  in  this  book,  which,  if  taken  as  the  established  opinion  of 
Coheleth,  -would  show  that  he  doubted  or  denied  a  future  existence,  cannot 
-well  be  gainsayed.  So  vs.  18 — 20  below,  where  he  seems  to  doubt,  or  ig- 
nore any  knowledge  of,  the  spirit  of  man  after  death,  viz.,  whether  it  goes 
upward,  or  not.  In  9 :  5  he  says,  that  "the  dead  know  nothing,  and  have 
no  reward."  In  9  :  6  he  says  :  "  There  is  no  work,  nor  device,  nor  knowl- 
edge, nor  wisdom,  in  the  grave,  whither  thou  goest."  Certainly,  these  things 
cannot  be  fairly  disposed  of  by  any  one  who  maintains  that  the  writer  gives 
everywhere  his  settled  opinion,  instead  of  communicating  sometimes  the 
doubts  he  had  experienced  in  a  course  of  philosophical  inquiry.  They  are 
forced,  in  his  way,  to  admit  contradictions  in  the  book,  by  their  mode  of 
exegesis ;  and  if  not,  then  they  have  to  put  the  author's  words  on  the  rack, 
to  make  them  confess  what  they  themselves  wish.  On  the  other  hand,  ad- 
mitting the  expression  of  such  doubts  and  objections,  the  question  remains: 
Has  the  writer  developed  anywhere  his  ultimate  and  settled  opinion  1  In  re- 
gard to  the  point  now  before  us  —  the  judgment  of  men's  actions  —  it  seems 
to  me  quite  clear  that  he  has.  I  bring  out  this  conclusion  by  means  of 
several  things  which  lie  on  the  face  of  his  book. 

( 1 )  The  present  life  presents  no  important  distinction  between  the  right- 
eous and  the  wicked  as  to  their  condition  and  destiny.  The  wise  and  the 
foolish  have  the  same  experience  of  the  evils  of  life,  2  :  14,  15.  Even  that 
which  befalleth  the  beasts,  befalleth  all  men  in  common,  3  :  18 — 21.  The 
oppressed  have  no  comforter ;  the  dead,  yea  the  unborn,  are  in  a  more  desir- 
able condition  than  the  living,  4  ;  1 — 3.  What  hath  the  wise  man  more  than 
the  fool  ?  6  :  8.  The  just  perish  in  their  righteousness,  and  the  wicked  pro- 
long life  in  their  wickedness,  7:15.  There  are  just  men  to  whom  it  hap- 
peneth  according  to  the  work  of  the  wicked,  and  there  are  wicked  men  to 
whom  it  happeneth  according  to  the  work  of  the  righteous,  8:14.  All 
things  come  alike  to  all ;  there  is  one  event  to  the  righteous  and  to  the 
wicked,  to  the  clean  and  to  the  unclean,  9  :  2.  No  man  knoweth  either  love 
or  hatred  by  all  that  is  before  him,  9:1.  Time  and  chance  happen  to  all,  9  : 
11.  Thus  we  have,  according  to  the  simple  tenor  of  these  words,  complete 
doubt,  or  rather  direct  denial,  of  any  distinctions  in  the  present  life  between  the 
righteous  and  the  wicked.  If  now  we  take  these  declarations  as  evidence  of 
Coheleth's  settled  opinion,  it  is  idle  to  talk  of  reward  and  punishment  as 
applicable  to  men  in  this  world.  On  the  other  hand,  if  we  regard  all  decla- 
rations of  this  kind  as  indicative  merely  of  a  doubting  state  of  mind,  or  as 
related  simply  to  those  misfortunes  and  sufferings  of  all  men,  which  are  in 
common  while  they  arc  in  their  temporal  condition,  neither  of  these  positions 
will  go  to  disprove  a  future  judgment.     At  all  events,  it  is  in  sober  earnest 


184:  ECCLESIASTES    III.  17. 

that  Coheleth  maintains  the  lot  of  all  men,  without  distinction,  to  be  one  of 
misery  and  death.  In  this  respect  all  are  alike,  for  there  is  no  distinction. 
But, 

(2)  He  still  holds  fast  the  idea  that  there  is  a  retribution  to  the  righteous 
and  the  wicked. 

God  is  to  be  feared,  3  :  14.  His  worshippers  are  to  avoid  offending  him, 
by  the  most  scrupulous  attention  to  their  religious  duties,  lest  he  should  be 
angry,  5  :  1 — 7.  He  thatfeareth  God,  shall  come  forth  out  of  all  harm,  7  : 
18.  God  made  man  upright,  but  they  have  sought  out  many  evil  inventions 
(7  :  29),  and  consequently  deserve  chastisement.  Wickedness  shall  not  de- 
liver those  who  are  given  to  it,  8:8.  It  shall  be  well  with  them  that  fear 
God,  . . .  but  it  shall  not  be  well  with  the  wicked,  8:  12,  13.  Remember  thy 
Creator  in  the  days  of  thy  youth,  12:  1  (with  the  implication  of  reward  for 
so  doing).  Fear  God,  and  keep  his  commandments,  12  :  13  (with  the  same 
implication). 

Here  then,  in  Nos.  1.  2,  are  diverse  and  opposite  sentiments  —  opposite,  in 
case  we  maintain  that  there  is  no  retribution  beyond  the  present  life  in  Cohe- 
leth's  view ;  as  most  neological  critics  and  some  others  do.  First  there  is 
no  distinction,  in  the  present  life,  as  to  the  condition  of  the  righteous  and  the 
wicked  ;  "  all  things  come  alike  to  all."  Secondly,  "  it  shall  be  well  with 
them  that  fear  God;  it  shall  not  be  ivell  with  the  wicked." —  When  ?  Not 
in  this  world,  according  to  the  preceding  view,  for,  according  to  that,  "  all 
things  come  alike  to  all."  If,  then,  the  second  class  of  texts  be  true  (and 
why  should  we  call  this  in  question?),  it  must  be  that  a. future  retribution 
awaits  men.    We  come  now  to  our  text  again. 

(3)  There  is,  then,  a  time  for  judgment,  according  to  this  text,  when  dis- 
tinctions will  be  made,  and  retribution  will  follow.  There  is  "One  higher 
than  the  highest,"  who  will  punish  oppressors,  5  :  8,  and  vindicate  the  op- 
pressed, who  "had  no  comforter"  here,  4:1.  He  that  feareth  God  shall  be 
delivered,  7  :  26.  The  young  may  rejoice  in  their  blessings,  and  live  cheer- 
fully ;  but  they  are  to  remember  always  that  "  for  all  these  things  God  will 
bring  them  into  judgment,"  11  :  9.  "God  will  bring  to  judgment  every 
work,  with  every  secret  thing,  whether  it  be  good,  or  whether  it  be  evil,"  12  : 
14.  This  last  passage  forces  even  Knobel  to  acknowledge  its  reference  to  a 
future  judgment.  He  assigns  two  reasons;  the  first,  that  everything  is  to  be 
brought  into  judgment;  the  second,  that  even  every  scent  thing  is  to  be 
judged.  This  formula,  as  he  well  remarks,  is  always  applied  to  a  judgment 
of  in-  death ;  see  Rom.  2:  1G  ;  1  Cor.  4  :  5  ;  1  Tim.  5  :  24,  25.  He  then  goes 
on  to  Bay  :  "  "Neither  of  these  two  expressions  could  be  expected  if  the  wri- 
ter were  speaking  merely  of  the  natural  consequences  of  human  actions  as  a 


ECCLESIASTES    III.   17.  185 

retribution  ; "  see  Knob,  in  loc.  This  is  ingenuous ;  but  what  next  ?  Knob. 
says,  that  "  such  being  plainly  the  sentiment  of  12:  14,  it  could  not  possibly 
have  been  written  by  Cohcleth,  and  must  have  another  author."  In  like 
manner,  Doderlein,  Schmidt,  Bcrtholdt,  Umbreit,  etc.  Of  all  these  assail- 
ants of  the  genuineness  of  the  passage,  Heiligstedt  well  says :  Authentiam 
argumentis  infrmissiinis  et  inanibus  impugnarunt. 

I  see  no  way  of  consistency,  then,  but  that  of  supposing  a  future  judgment 
and  retribution.  The  motives  to  piety  without  this  are  inert  and  powerless. 
If  you  say  that  the  prospect  of  a  judgment  during  the  present  life  is  suffi- 
cient, we  may  well  ask  how  that  can  be,  when  Coheleth  tells  us  that  "  there 
be  wicked  men  to  whom  it  happeneth  according  to  the  work  of  the  righteous," 
(8 :  14) ;  and  that  "  all  things  come  alike  to  all,"  9:2?  What  retribution  is 
there  in  all  this  ?  All  exhortations  to  "  fear  God,  and  keep  his  command- 
ments," are  fruitless  on  any  other  ground  than  that  of  a  judgment  after 
death.  Retribution  is  the  very  soul  of  all.  He  that  cometh  unto  God  must 
believe  that  he  is,  and  that  he  is  the  rewarder  of  them  that  diligently  seek 
him,"  Heb.  11:6. 

And  when  we  are  told  so  often  and  so  confidently  that  the  ancient  He- 
brews had  no  idea  of  a  future  state  and  a  future  judgment,  and  therefore 
Coheleth  could  have  no  reference  to  either,  we  must  crave  the  liberty  of 
hesitating  before  we  receive  this.  What  did  the  Hebrews  think  had  become 
of  Enoch  and  Elijah,  after  their  translation  ?  What  is  the  meaning  of  being 
gathered  to  one's  fathers  ?  Gen.  49  :  29  ;  Judg.  2  :  10.  Ges.  says  :  "  It  is  spoken 
of  the  entrance  into  Orcus,  where  the  Hebrews  supposed  their  ancestors  to 
be  assembled."  (Lex.  tjCi*,Niph.)  Then  what  means:  "  In  thy  presence 
is  fulness  of  joy  ;  at  thy  right  hand  are  pleasures  for  ever  more  ?  "  Ps.  16  : 
11.  What  shall  we  say  of  Ps.  17  :  15,  "I  shall  be  satisfied  when  I  awake 
in  thy  likeness  "  1  And  Daniel,  not  improbably  a  contemporary  of  the  real 
Coheleth  —  what  means  he  when  he  tells  us  that  "many  of  them  tbat  sleep 
in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake,  some  to  everlasting  life,  and  some  to 
shame  and  everlasting  contempt  "  1  Here  is  not  only  futurity,  but  a  resur- 
rection of  the  body  itself.  Isaiah,  too,  has  added  his  testimony  :  "  Thy  dead 
men  shall  live  :  with  my  dead  body  shall  they  arise.  Awake  and  sing,  ye 
that  dwell  in  dust  [>.  e.,  ye  dead]  ;  for  thy  dew  is  as  the  dew  of  herbs,  and 
the  earth  shall  cast  out  [bring  forth,  in  the  Heb.]  the  dead,"  26  :  19.  Beau- 
tiful imagery  this  :  in  which  the  grave  is  represented,  like  the  grass  on  which 
dew  falls,  as  fructiferous,  and  bringing  forth  its  dead  as  the  fruit.  This  is 
now  generally  admitted  to  refer  to  the  resurrection.  And  when  the  Saviour 
says,  respecting  the  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  that  "he  is  not  the 
God  of  the  dead,  but  of  the  living,"  does  not  he  suppose  the  Jews,  with  whom 

1G* 


186  ECCLESIASTES    III .   17,  IS. 

he  was  reasoning,  to  believe  in  a  future  state  ?  All  this,  and  more  which 
might  be  easily  adduced  from  the  Old  Test.,  makes  me  hesitate  to  receive  the 
neological  doctrine  in  respect  to  the  subject  before  us.  How  can  any  man 
reasonably  suppose  that  the  Hebrews,  with  Moses,  and  Samuel,  and  David, 
and  Solomon,  and  Isaiah,  and  other  highly  distinguished  men  to  teach  them, 
and  above  all  if  we  believe  them  (as  I  do)  to  have  been  inspired — that  the 
Jewish  nation,  after  all,  knew  less  than  the  Egyptian  and  other  heathen  na- 
tions around  them,  about  a  future  state  of  existence  ?  The  idea  is  all  but 
preposterous  in  my  view.  Still,  I  would  not  claim  for  Coheleth  more  than 
his  book  will  justify.  Those  who  find  gospel-clearness  in  the  Old  Test.,  on 
such  subjects,  seem  to  forget  that  Paul  has  assigned  to  the  gospel  of  Christ 
the  high  prerogative  of  "  bringing  life  and  immortality  to  light."  It  has 
brought  out  into  noonday  splendor  what  before  was  seen  only  in  the 
twilight. 

A  more  inconsistent  man  than  Coheleth  it  would  be  difficult  to  find,  put- 
ting all  his  views  side  by  side,  provided  he  has  abjured  a\\  futurity,  and  yet 
insists  on  retribution  to  the  righteous  and  the  wicked,  while  he  at  the  same 
time  has  again  and  again  declared  that  "  all  things  [in  this  world]  come  alike 
to  all,"  and  that  "  no  man  knowcth  either  love  or  hatred  from  all  that  is  here 
before  him."  But  when  we  view  him  in  the  light  of  proposing  the  doubts 
and  difficulties  which  perplexed  his  own  mind,  and  sooner  or  later  as  solving 
them,  then  we  meet  with  no  very  serious  embarrassment  in  the  plain  and 
straight-forward  grammatico-historical  interpretation  of  the  book.] . 

(18)1  said  in  my  heart,  on  account  of  the  sons  of  men,  in  order  that  God 
might  search  them,  and  that  they  might  see  for  themselves  that  they  are 
beasts. 

On  account  of  the  so?is  of  men  —  what  is  it  which  has  been 
done,  or  is  to  be  done,  on  their  account  ?  This  verse  is  coordi- 
nate with  v.  17,  both  beginning  in  the  same  way,  and  both 
equally  having  relation  to  v.  16.  There  we  have  the  declara- 
tion, that  injustice  occupies  the  tribunal  of  justice.  This  is  suf- 
fered or  permitted,  partly  in  order  that  men  might  be  brought 
to  see  how  brutish  their  conduct  often  is.  God  searches  them  by 
such  a  dispensation,  and  makes  them  conscious,  in  this  manner, 
how  wickedly  they  can  demean  themselves. -r— c^sb,  Inf.  of  "na, 
witli  pref.  b  and  suff.  C-.  The  Inf.  ending  with  ~\  takes  Pattah, 
like  verbs  b  Gutt. ;   and  the  usual  Dagh.  forte  of  verbs  Ayin 


ECCLESIASTES    III.   19.  187 

doubled,  is  inadmissible  in  1  §  G6.  3.  Of  course,  the  Pat  tali  goes 
into  Qamets,  §  22.  2.  D-  is  the  usual  Suff.,  here  in  the  Ace. 
after  la.  The  verb  *Ha  =  *nn  in  9 :  1,  and  means  here  to  ex- 
plore, to  search  ;  see  Lex.  The  subject  of  the  Inf.  (n^n'bxn)  fol- 
lows the  verb  as  usual,  with  the  Ace.  pronoun  suff.  inserted  be- 
tween them.  The  b  before  the  verb  designates  purpose  or  design. 
Sentiment :  '  It  is  for  their  sakes,  or  on  their  own  account,  that 
God  sifts  or  explores  them.'  Why  ?  That  they  might  see,  etc. 
Here,  as  fiiH'bx  is  not  repeated  after  rriaob,  so  as  to  designate  a 
subject  for  the  Inf.  verb,  we  must  supply  one  from  the  context. 
This  gives  us  sons  of  men.  It  is  that  men  (not  God)  may  see 
how  brutish  they  are,  in  placing  and  continuing  injustice  on  the 
tribunal  of  justice.  They  are  thus  made  to  perceive  for  them- 
selves that  they  are  beasts.  —  D  instead  of  \rJz=ndx,  is  perhaps 
shortened  because  of  the  Maqqeph  that  follows  ;  once,  however, 
UJ  occurs  in  2  :  22,  without  Maqqeph,  but  with  variations,  as  some 
Mss.  have  D. —  man  are  simply  a  copula,  §  119,  2.  —  fifib  gives 
intensity  to  the  expression  of  the  subject  that  they  themselves 
might  see,  or  that  they  might  see  for  themselves,  §  119.  3. 

The  writer  next  proceeds  to  give  a  reason  why  he  has  be- 
stowed on  mankind  the  degrading  appellation  of  beasts.  He 
points  out  the  resemblance  between  them  and  the  beasts. 

( 1 9  For  as  to  the  destiny  of  men  and  the  destiny  of  beasts  —  there  is  even 
one  destiny  for  them ;  as  dieth  this,  so  dieth  that;  there  is  one  breath  to  all ; 
and  excellence  of  man  over  beast  there  is  not ;  for  all  is  vanity. 

As  to  sentiment,  comp.  9  :  2,  3  ;  2  :  14, 15  ;  Ps.  49  :  13,  21.  In 
the  first  clause  i"HJ?B,  as  now  pointed,  is  Nom.  absolute.  In  n^j3»3 , 
the  si  is  climactic,  §  152.  Vav,  B.  2.  The  copula,  as  usual,  is 
omitted  in  all  three  clauses,  §  141.  —  rift  may  be  Inf.  nominas- 
cens,  or  a  noun  in  the  const,  state  before  Sit,  lit.  as  is  the  death 
of  this,  so  is  the  death  of  that.  That  h*Ti  means  vital  breath  here 
is  plain ;  for  this  breath  belongs  in  common  to  both,  and  is  desig- 
nated in  each  case  by  nn ;  comp.  Gen.  2  :  7  ;  6  :  17  ;  7  :  15,  22, 


188  ECCLESIASTES    III.  20,21. 

where  the  idea  is  fully  expressed  by  d^n  mi.  Sometimes  the 
word  designates  anima,  also  animus  and  intellectus  ;  see  Lex.  — 
Vsb,  with  the  article,  because  of  universality.  No  excellence  of 
man  over  beasts,  i.  e.,  none  in  regard  to  the  thing  which  he  has 
in  view.  One  and  the  same  destiny,  viz.,  suffering  and  death, 
equally  awaits  all.  —  *px  is  not,  its  subject  is  into.  All  are  to  be 
placed  alike  under  the  general  category  of  vanity.  The  writer 
next  proceeds  to  confirm  v.  18  by  other  facts. 

(20)  All  go  to  one  place;  all  sprang  from  the  dust,  and  all  return  to  the 
dust : 

rrri  =  eyeVero,  originated,  came  into  existence  —  Stt3,  3  Praet. 
of  did,  and  not  Part.,  comp.  STjfi  in  the  preceding  clause.  —  ^?n 
article  before  the  name  of  a  well-known  substance,  §  107.  3.  N. 
1.  b.  For  the  vowel  (Seghol),  see  Lex.  T\,  Not.  2.  c.  Beasts 
are  from  the  dust,  Gen.  2  :  19  ;  1  :  24 ;  and  so  is  man,  Gen.  2:7; 
3:19.  Both  return  to  dust,  Ps.  104 :  29  ;  146  :  4.  Thus  far 
the  bodies  only  of  each  party  are  compared ;  for  of  these  only  is 
the  assertion  true.  But  what  of  the  nil,  the  animating  breath  of 
life  ?  This  is  not  material  or  corporeal.    Whither,  then,  does  it  go  ? 

(21)  Who  knoweth  the  spirit  of  the  sons  of  men,  whether  it  ascendeth  up- 
ward, and  the  spirit  of  beasts,  whether  it  descendelh  downwards  to  the  earth  % 

rti*n,  the  fi  is  rendered  as  the  article-pronoun  (§  107.  1)  in 
our  version,  viz.,  that  =  which.  But  all  the  old  versions  make  it 
the  interrogative  tt,  viz.,  Sept.,Vulg.,  Syr.,  Arab.,  Chald.,  and  so 
Luther  and  others,  with  nearly  all  recent  critics.  Even  the 
present  pointing  does  not  decide  against  this,  for  ii  interrog.  not 
unfrequently  takes  a  Dagh.  after  it,  like  the  article ;  e.  g.,  in  Job 
23  :  6  ;  Lev,  10  :  19  ;  Is.  27  :  7  ;  Ezek.  18:  29,  al.  Here,  as  the 
Dagh.  is  suppressed,  because  of  the  Guttural,  the  short  vowel 
becomes  long,  as  in  case  of  the  article.  So  also  in  n^i^n,  where 
the  Dagh.  is  inserted,  as  stated  above.  Besides  n  pronoun  does 
not  couple  with  ion  which  here  follows.     It  must  be  "ittHfc,  in 


ECCLESIASTES    III.  22.  189 

such  a  case.  Moreover,  who  hioweth  ?  implies  the  indirect  in- 
terrogative whether  after  it,  I.  e.,  who  knoweth  whether  it  is  so,  or 
so  ?  The  doubt  which  is  suggested  here  about  the  spirit  of  man 
is  not  answered  for  the  present,  but  is  fully  answered  in  12:  7, 
where  we  are  told  that  "  the  spirit  returns  to  God  who  gave  it." 
Comp.  Job  33  :  28—30  ;  34 :  14 ;  Ps.  104  :  29.  As  to  the  spirit 
of  beasts,  the  question  is  not  one  of  the  same  interest ;  no  an- 
swer to  it,  therefore,  is  anywhere  given.  It  would  seem  that  the 
common  impression  about  the  entire  extinction  of  beasts  at  their 
death,  is  tacitly  admitted  to  be  true.  The  X*il,  in  both  cases, 
answers  the  purpose  of  the  substantive  verb  in  forming  the  par- 
ticiples so  as  to  make  them  into  verbs,  §  119.  2.  §  131.  2.  c.  It 
is  fern.,  because  n^  is  usually  so.  —  fra^  probably  from  "^de- 
pression, with  H-  parag.  —  Y*y^  makes  the  meaning  still  more 
express  and  emphatic. 

That  an  opinion  was  entertained  by  some  around  him,  when 
Coheleth  wrote  his  book,  that  the  spirit  of  man  goes  upwards,  i.  e., 
returns  to  God  (12:  7),  is  clear  from  his  putting  the  question. 
The  idea  was  not  new  to  him.  But  here,  in  his  doubting  and 
desponding  mood,  he  makes  it  a  question  by  asking :  Who  know- 
eth ?  That  is,  he  here  intimates  that  this  matter  is  doubtful.  It 
is  to  his  purpose  here  to  leave  it  so ;  for  this  brings  man  and 
beast  into  a  closer  resemblance,  and  his  present  concern  is  to 
make  out  this.  The  whole  passage  (vs.  18 — 21)  shows  that 
when  the  writer  penned  it,  he  was  in  that  perplexed  state  of 
mind  which  is  so  often  developed  in  the  book,  before  we  come 
near  to  the  close  of  it.  There  the  mist  begins  to  dissipate,  and 
he  sees  many  things  in  a  truer  and  more  cheering  light  than  be- 
fore. Hesitation  and  skepticism  are  overcome,  and  his  manful 
struggle  to  obtain  light  and  truth  becomes  triumphant.  But, 
taking  things  as  they  now  appear  to  him,  he  comes  once  more  to 
the  former  conclusion,  viz.     • 

(22)  Then  I  saw  that  there  is  no  good  other  than  that  a  man  rejoice  in  his 


190  ECCLESIASTES    III     22. 

doings,  since  this  is  his  portion  ;  for  who  shall  bring  him  to  look  upon  that 
which  shall  be  after  him. 

The  same  sentiment  above,  in  3 :  12,  13  ;  2  :  24.  —  Tb^s  his 
doings,  not  merely  toil  or  labor,  but  all  his  actions  and  efforts. 
Let  each  one  take  all  the  enjoyment  which  his  efforts  can  secure. 
Rational  and  moderate  enjoyment,  not  Epicureanism,  is  doubtless 
to  be  understood  here  ;  see  2  :  9,  3.  —  For  surf.  to-  in  IS&jpa?,  see 
Par.  of  Suff.  p.  289.  —  a  fiN'n  means,  to  look  intently  upon,  i.  e., 
with  interest  or  pleasure.  Sentiment:  '  Seize  on  the  present, 
and  enjoy  what  you  safely  and  reasonably  (rrcrna)  can ;  for  the 
future  no  one  can  disclose  with  any  certainty. '  In  other  words  : 
'  Make  the  best  of  what  is  now  at  your  command,  and  trust  not 
to  the  uncertainties  of  the  future.'  Confining  our  view  merely 
to  the  world  of  sense,  this  advice  is  beyond  all  doubt  correct  and 
proper.  Every  being  instinctively  desires  enjoyment ;  and  Cohe- 
leth  would  have  him  secure  what  he  can  derive  from  his  efforts, 
but  enjoy  it  with  moderation  and  caution.  Such  advice  is  far 
enough,  indeed,  from  any  monkish  asceticism.  Coheleth,  for  the 
present,  is  looking  only  at  this  mutable  and  transitory  world,  and 
inquiring  what  good  it  can  afford  which  is  worth  striving  for. 
He  comes  repeatedly  to  the  conclusion  that  all  is  mutable,  evan- 
escent, unsatisfactory,  and  not  to  be  depended  on,  since  we  have 
no  control  over  it.  To  satisfy  our  innocent  natural  appetites,  and 
supply  our  wants,  is  all  to  which  we  can  attain  in  the  present 
world.  This  he  urges  all  to  do,  in  order,  as  it  plainly  seems, 
that  they  may  be  more  contented  and  happy  and  cheerful.  But 
it  would  be  a  great  mistake  to  cite  from  this  book  passages  in 
order  to  encourage  men  to  become  Epicureans,  or,  on  the  other 
hand,  to  be  gloomy  and  discontented  Fatalists.  Coheleth  was 
neither  the  one  nor  the  other. 

In  my  remarks  above,  on  v.  17, 1  have  stated  the  views  of  most  of  the 
recent  German  commentators  respecting  the  opinions  of  Coheleth  as  they 
regard  a  future  Btate.     The  doubt  expressed  about  the  final  destiny  of  n-.n  , 


REMARKS    ON    III.  21.  191 

in  v.  21,  they  arc  well  satisfied  to  aeecpt  as  evidence  of  his  skeptical  views 
concerning  the  future.  But  12:  7  stands  somewhat  in  their  way.  "The 
nn  returns  to  God  who  gave  it."  The  explanation  which  they  give  of  this 
is,  that  '  God  takes  back  the  breath  of  life  (mn)  which  he  originally  gave.' 
Hitzig  asserts  that  the  writer,  in  12  :  7,  has  declared  this  to  be  true  of  the 
n*-i  of  both  man  and  beast.  If  so,  however,  it  does  not  lie  in  the  words  of 
12:7,  for  there  the  nip  of  man  only  is  spoken  of.  But  Ps.  104  :  29  seems 
adapted  to  sustain  his  position.  The  Psalmist  is  speaking  of  all  the  animals, 
groat  and  small.  He  says  respecting  them  :  "  Thou  takest  away  their  H*n, 
and  they  expire,"  i.  e.,  breathe  out  their  vital  breath,  "\~V 1A*.  In  Job  34  :  14, 
15,  occurs  the  like  expression  respecting  man:  "He  [God]  taketh  to  himself 
his  spirit  (^hii)  and  his  breath  ;  all  flesh  perisheth  together,  and  man  return- 
cth  to  dust."  In  33  :  30,  this  is  expressed  by  '^vti  H^vnh,  to  take  back  his 
soul  or  life.  It  is  clear,  then,  that  tvn  may  be  and  is  employed  to  designate 
vital  breath,  both  of  man  and  animals,  and  that  the  taking  away  of  this  brings 
on  natural  death.  But  when,  as  in  12  :  7,  it  is  said  of  the  Si^n  itself,  that  it 
returns  (nrrtn)  to  God  who  gave  it  (Gen.  2:  7),  it  is  doubtless  the  same 
tvn,  of  which  (Gen.  6  :  3)  it  is  said  :  It  shall  not  always  be  humiliated  (^Vr 
from  "pn  =  Arab.  -  |  *  to  humble)  in  man ;  i.  e.,  God  will  speedily  recall  it, 

or  take  it  back,  since  it  is  so  degraded.  It  is  said  to  return  to  God,  in  our 
text.  But  how  did  the  Hebrew  conceive  of  such  a  return  1  Was  it  a  reab- 
sorption  into  the  source  whence  it  came,  and  was  the  breath  of  life  regarded 
as  something  material,  e.  g.,  like  to  our  atmosphere  ?  I  know  not  how  we 
can  answer  this  question  with  entire  confidence ;  for  a  minute  knowledge  of 
lleb.  speculative  philosophy,  with  respect  to  such  a  point,  we  do  not  possess. 
Yet  Job  4  :  15,  16,  gives  us  an  important  hint :  "  Then  a  spirit  passed  before 
my  face  ;  the  hair  of  my  flesh  stood  up.  It  stood  still,  but  I  could  not  dis- 
cern the  form  thereof;  an  image  was  before  mine  eyes  ;  silence,  and  then  a 
voire,"  etc.  In  other  words,  a  shadowy,  undefined  something  was  before  him, 
visible  as  distinguished  from  other  things,  and  yet  not  defined  in  the  detail. 
Here  then  is  a  ti\~\  diverse  from  vital  breath.  It  seems,  in  the  speaker's 
view  (Eliphaz),  to  be  the  visible  symbol  or  representative  form  of  something 
which  was  immaterial  in  man,  viz.,  the  breath  of  life.  This  then,  as  it  would 
seem,  does  not  dissolve  and  perish  like  the  body,  and  with  it.  It  goes  back 
to  God,  who  gives  to  it  this  subtile  and  unsubstantial  fonn.  With  this  agree 
the  words  of  Jesus  (Luke  24  :  39) :  "A  spirit  (irvev/xa—  risi)  hath  no  flesh 
and  bones,  as  ye  see  me  have."  The  two  passages  let  us  into  the  porch  of 
Jewish  pneumatology ;  but  do  not  lead  us  into  the  adytum  of  the  building. 
What  returns  to  God,  what  he  takes  away  (r,Cx),  seems  not  to  be  absorbed 


192  REMARKS   OX   III.   21. 

in  him,  but  to  take  to  itself  as  it  were  a  shadowy  form,  capable  of  motion 
and  development.  Nor  does  this  stand  in  opposition  to  Ecc.  9  :  10,  which 
declares  that  "  in  Sheol,  there  is  neither  work,  nor  device,  nor  knowledge, 
nor  wisdom."  The  meaning  of  this  is,  that  the  dead  cannot  perform  the 
functions  of  the  living ;  but  it  does  not  decide  that  there  is  no  future  exist- 
ence, no  surviving  of  a  human  being  in  any  sense,  in  and  by  something 
which  belongs  to  man.  There  may  be  a  rrn,  like  that  described  by  Eli- 
phaz  and  by  Christ,  and  yet  all  the  actions  of  the  common  physical  man  be 
unsuitable  to  be  ascribed  to  it.  Nor  can  we  appeal  with  confidence  to  Is. 
14 :  9,  10,  Avhere  the  D^S-i  (umbrae)  in  Sheol  are  represented  as  in  commo- 
tion, to  meet  the  approaching  ghost  of  the  Babylonish  monarch  and  deride 
him ;  for  this  picture  has  its  basis  merely  in  the  popular  views  respecting 
hhvsp,  like  those  among  us  about  ghosts.  Hitzig,  on  Ecc.  12:7,  says  that 
Coheleth  represents  the  ri*H  "  as  a  particle  of  the  divine  breath,  or  world- 
soul,  which  at  decease  is  reabsorbed."  With  all  due  deference,  I  would 
suggest  that  a  world-soul  belongs  to  Greeks  and  Romans,  but  not  to  the  He- 
brews. God,  a  personal  God,  infinitely  above  all  matter,  separate  from  it,  is 
an  unvarying  doctrine  of  the  Hebrew  theology.  "  God  is  a  spirit,"  is  a  dec- 
laration of  Jesus  (John  4  :  24) ;  but  evidently  a  declaration  which  develops 
only  the  common  Jewish  sentiment. 

The  question,  then,  "What  becomes  of  the  rvn  physiologically  which  ascends 
upward  —  which  returns  to  God  who  gave  it?  is  one  on  which  no  portion  of 
the  Old  Test.  Scriptures  directly  passes  sentence.  It  must  be  made  out  from 
inference,  if  made  out  at  all.  An  incorporeal  being  Eliphaz  saw ;  one  that 
hath  neither  flesh  nor  bones,  Jesus  decides  a  spirit  to  be.  But  beyond  this, 
who  can  with  certainty  affirm  1  The  word  rpn  means  breath  of  the  mouth 
or  nostrils  ;  then  breath  of  the  air,  i.  e.,  Avind  ;  then  breath  of  life=v£S  (No. 
2  Lex.),  and  tyvxh,  or  anima  ;  then  the  seat  of  sensations,  affections,  and  t  »;o- 
tions ;  then  the  love  or  temper  of  these,  and  specially  the  will  and  purpose  of  the 
soul ;  and  lastly,  intellect,  intelligence.  Eor  the  last  we  have  a  notable  passage 
in  Job  32  :  8  :  "  There  is  aspirit  in  man,  and  the  inspiration  of  the  Almighty 
hath  given  him  understanding."  The  two  clauses  are  parallelisms,  and  of 
the  like  meaning.  See  also  Job  32  :  18  ;  Is.  29  :  24  ;  40  :  13;  Ps.  139  :  7. 
Yet  none  of  all  these  meanings  compare  with  our  English  word  soul  in  the 
higher  sense,  viz.,  a  spiritual  incorporeal  being,  having  "a  separate  and  personal 
existence.  Has  the  Old  Test,  disclosed  such  an  idea,  except  it  be  obtained 
by  implication  ?  That  the  later  HcbrcAvs  believed  in  something  of  this  na- 
ture, ifl  clear  from  the  parable  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus,  and  from  the 
words  oi  our  Saviour  to  the  thief  on  the  cross:  ''This  day  shalt  thou  be 
with  me  in  Paradise,"  Luke  23  :  43;  which  is  confirmed  by  ileb.  12  ;  2;\  , 


REMARKS    ON    III.    21.  193 

Rev.  5  :  8 — 13  ;  6  :  9, 10,  al.  So  too  angels  arc  spirits,  and  demons  are  spirits. 
But  there  is  nothing  so  express  as  this  in  the  Old  Test.  When  the  divine 
Being  is  called  "  the  God  of  the  spirits  of  all  flesh"  (Numb.  16  :  22  ;  27  :  10), 
the  meaning  is  simply  that  he  is  supreme  over  all  men  that  live  or  have 
vital  breath  ;  comp.  Job.  12  :  10  ;  Is.  57  :  16. 

"We  must  give  up,  then,  the  idea  of  finding  exactly  the  pneumatology  which 
is  taught  by  our  philosophical  systems  in  the  Old  Test.  An  incorporeal 
personal  being  after  death,  we  cannot  find  expressly  and  definitely  in  the  Jew- 
ish Scriptures  ;  i.  e .,  this  is  not  formally  and  directly  developed  there.  But 
is  it  not  a  matter  of  fair  inference  from  what  is  there  said?  At  the  close  of 
Coheleth,  when  the  writer  brings  old  age  to  view,  and  death  as  its  proximate 
sequel,  he  announces  the  latter  by  saying,  then  "  shall  the  spirit  return  to 
God  who  gave  it."  But  what  says  he  a  moment  after  this?  "For  God 
will  bring  to  judgment  every  work,  with  every  secret  thing,  whether  it  be 
good  or  whether  it  be  evil.  "  But  how  shall  the  spirit  which  has  returned 
to  God  be  judged,  if  it  be  absorbed  in  him  as  the  anima  mundi  (Hitzig),  or 
as  a  part  of  his  subtile  impalpable  essence  ?  How  can  it  be  judged,  without 
any  personality,  or  any  identity  of  being  with  the  former  man  ?  How  can 
it  have  "fulness  of  joy  in  God's  presence"  (Ps.  16:  11),  or  be  "satisfied, 
when  it  awakes  in  his  likeness"  (Ps.  17  :  15),  without  personality  and  real 
existence  of  its  own  ?  In  Dan.  12:2,  and  Is.  26  :  19,  a  resurrection  of  the 
body  is  taught ;  so  that  we  cannot  appropriately  appeal  to  those  texts  as  to 
the  point  now  before  us.  But  the  other  passages  just  quoted,  and  Ecc. 
3  :  17 ;  11  :  9,  viewed  in  the  light  which  they  afford,  seem  to  lead  us  to  the 
conclusion,  that  while  rrn,  in  far  the  greater  number  of  cases,  means  breath, 
breath  of  life,  the  seat  of  affections  and  emotions,  and  understanding  or  intelligence, 
the  use  of  it  in  some  cases,  like  that  of  Ecc.  12:7,  imports  a  surviving  of 
the  germ  or  source  of  those  affections  and  of  that  intelligence.  That  the  He- 
brew pncumatology  was  well  defined  as  to  this  point,  that  ancient  metaphys- 
ics made  it  out  as  plainly  and  fully  as  ours  under  the  teachings  of  the  gos- 
pel, no  considerate  man  will  assert,  who  has  well  studied  the  subject.  The 
judgment,  the  reward,  the  retribution,  still  were  realities  in  the  view  of  the 
Hebrews.  At  least  this  seems  to  be  plain  in  the  way  of  inference.  And 
athough  Coheleth  here  appears  to  doubt  this  (3  :  21),  he  plainly  quits  all  his 
doubts  in  12 :  7,  and  speaks  decidedly. 

17 


194  ECCLESIASTES    IV.  1,2. 

§  7.  Difficulties  in  respect  to  Enjoyment.      Toil  and  Disappoint- 
ment consequent  on  Plans  to  be  rich  or  powerful. 

Chap.  IY.  1.— 16. 

[The  writer  has  just  been  urging  the  present  enjoyment  of  one's  labors  and 
efforts.  Difficulties  that  lie  in  the  way  of  this  now  seem  to  start  up  and  pre- 
sent themselves.  Oppression  is  rife,  and  even  carried  so  far  as  to  make  life 
disgusting.  All  one's  efforts  are  frustrated  by  it,  so  that  the  pursuit  of  good, 
in  this  way,  turns  out  to  be  vanity,  vs.  1 — 6.  One  sets  out  to  accumulate 
much  wealth ;  he  even  lives  a  solitary  life  in  order  to  avoid  expense ;  yet 
this  lonely  condition  is  attended  with  inconvenience  and  harm,  vs.  7—12. 
One  born  poor  is  presented  as  striving  to  obtain  even  a  throne;  he  succeeds, 
to  the  prejudice  of  the  old  king  ;  but  at  last  his  own  disappointment  and  dis- 
grace follow,  vs.  13 — 16.] 

( 1 )  Then  I  turned  and  saw  all  the  oppressions  which  are  done  under  the 
sun;  and  behold!  the  tears  of  the  oppressed,  and  they  had  no  comforter; 
and  from  the  hand  of  their  oppressors  was  violence,  but  to  them  no  comforter. 

The  wound  of  oppression,  disclosed  in  3  :  16,  dwelt  so  on  the 
mind  of  the  writer,  and  was  so  aggravated  by  his  own  experience, 
that  it  breaks  out  afresh  here,  and  he  suggests  the  subject  as 
practically  connected  with  the  preceding  advice  about  enjoyment. 
This  he  thinks  is  impossible  while  things  remain  as  they  are. 
—  ~" w".3,  committed,  perpetrated.  —  TTqr\,  const,  sing,  being  a 
collective  noun.  We  must  render  it  by  the  plural,  because  our 
idiom  does  not  employ  the  sing,  in  such  a  case.  The  second 
fpr^;  is  Part.  pass.  —  Hb,  power  in  malam  partem,?',  e.,  force, 
violence.  The  three  participles  here  well  designate  the  continued 
action  which  the  case  presents. 

(2)  Then  I  praised  the  dead,  those  who  long  since  died,  more  than  those 
who  ure  living  unto  the  present  time. 

nrr  most  critics  regard  as  a  Part,  with  a  dropped;  which 
Bometimes  occurs,  perhaps,  in  Part.  Piel,  Zeph.  1  :  14.  Knobel 
has  cited  four  examples  in  proof  of  this  usage,  every  one  of  which 


ECCLESIASTES    IV.  3.  195 

belongs  to  Pual,  and  not  to  Piel.  Ilitzig  denies  such  a  usage  in 
Picl;  and  Ges.  lias  noted  none  in  his  Grammar.  Ilitzig  Bays 
that  we  must  make  it  in  the  Inf.  absolute,  which  may  follow  a 
definite  verb,  and  continue  the  construction  as  though  it  were  a 
definite  mode,  1  Chron.  5 :  20.  In  like  manner,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  def.  mode  may  follow  the  Inf.  abs.  in  the  same  con- 
struction, Job  40 :  2  ;  Gen.  17  :  10.  But  in  Chron.  5  :  20,  the  Inf. 
alis.  is  not  followed  (as  in  our  text)  by  a  Nom.  or  subject  of  the 
verb,  which  seems  to  make  a  difference.  The  isx,  in  our  text 
seemingly  requires  a  Part.,  or  else  the  def.  verb  "WOE  must  be 
implied.  Yet  cases  of  the  Nom.  or  subject  in  the  third  person, 
may  be  found  in  Job  40:  2.  Ezek.  1 :  14  (see  §  128.  4.  n.  1), 
joined  with  the  Inf.  abs.  We  may,  therefore,  accept  this  solution. 
The  making  an  adjective  of  Had,  as  some  have  done,  the  mean- 
ing of  the  wrord  puts  out  of  question.  —  sirra  declined  with  the 
Tseri  of  the  ground-form,  trg.  —  tP*n  adj.  from  in.  —  fnari  are, 
§119.  2. — TOTO,  compound  particle  from  nsn-*!?,  unto  here,  either 
as  to  place  or  time.     The  n-  is  local  and  paragogic,  the  root  be- 


(3)  And  better  than  both  of  them  is  he  who  hath  not  hitherto  come  into 
existence,  who  hath  not  seen  the  evil  deeds  which  are  done  under  the  sun. 

brpSTBO,  lit.  than  the  two  of  them,  the  dual  Nom.  is  d?DttJ.  — 
T-;x  rx,  Ace.  governed  by  Had  implied,  and  to  be  deduced  from 
the  preceding  verse.  Some  make  it  the  Nom.,  for  rx  is  some- 
times found  before  the  Nom.  (see  Lex.  n$,  2.  a.)  ;  but  this  is  un- 
necessary. Still,  I  have  made  the  translation  as  if  it  were  in  the 
Nom. ;  for  literally  rendered  as  Ace,  it  would  run  thus  :  A/id  as 
better  than  both  of  them  [I  praised]  him  who,  etc.  The  version 
above  is  more  facile.  —  fns,  apoc.  form,  without  the  parag.  nT . 
—  rnri  is  a  real  Perf.  here,  and  should  be  rendered,  has  not  been ; 
and  so  of  nxn.  —  sriin  adj.  here,  final  Qamets  made  by  the  pause- 
accent,  from  an.  See  a  different  construction  in  an  )yg  (1 :  13), 
where  "*\  i.s  a  noun  in  the  Genitive. 


196  ECCLESIASTES    IV.  3. 

The  pressure  of  the  times  must  have  been  grievous  to  call  forth 
such  a  sentiment  as  this.  We  cannot  imagine  anything  like  to 
this  in  the  days  of  Solomon.  The  connection  of  vs.  1 — 3  with 
what  immediately  precedes,  is  such  as  serves  to  show  that  the 
advice  given  in  3  :  22  could  not  be  followed,  at  the  time  then 
present,  so  as  to  secure  the  enjoyment  in  question ;  and  as  this 
was  the  writer's  last  hope  respecting  earthly  things,  and  this  hope 
was  now  frustrated  by  oppression,  Coheleth  despairs  of  life,  and 
wishes  rather  for  death.  He  pushes  the  matter  even  to  the  high- 
est extreme.  '  It  would  be  better,'  he  says,  '  never  to  have  been 
born,  than  to  come  into  life,  and  undergo  such  vexations  and  dis- 
appointments.' Thousands,  every  day,  now  sympathize  with  him. 
The  only  mystery  about  the  matter  is,  that  he  does  not  here  say 
one  word  about  a  future  world ;  for  a  lively  hope  of  happiness 
there  ought,  full  surely,  to  make  him  patient  and  submissive. 
But,  alas  !  as  he  has  told  us,  "  There  is  not  a  just  man  on  earth, 
that  doeth  good,  and  sinneth  not."  Job,  with  all  his  patience,  in 
a  moment  of  exasperation,  "  cursed  the  day  of  his  birth,"  3  :  1 
seq.  Moses  wished  rather  to  be  "  blotted  out  of  the  book  of  God," 
I.  e.,  to  be  erased  from  the  catalogue  of  the  living,  than  that  the 
request  which  he  made  should  be  refused,  Ex.  32  :  32.  Elijah, 
when  hotly  persecuted  by  Jezebel,  wished  heartily  to  die,  1  K. 
19:  4.  Jonah  was  doubtless  a  good  man;  but  when  under  dis- 
appointment, he  gave  expression  to  the  wishes  similar,  Jon. 
4  :  3.  If,  then,  we  allow  Coheleth  the  same  latitude  which  sacred 
history  shows  us  was  tolerated  in  others,  we  cannot  be  at  all  sur- 
pri  <  <1  at  his  impatience  :  especially  if  we  regard  his  views  of  the 
future  at  that  time  as  somewhat  unsettled  and  vacillating.  We 
Deed  no  Procrustes'  bed  for  the  text.  We  are  not  bound  either 
to  approve  of  or  to  follow  Coheleth's  conclusions  when  he  was 
in  his  perplexed  and  unsettled  slate,  but  rather  to  take  warning 
from  them,  and  seek  to  avoid  them.  Any  other  ground  for  the 
exegesis  of  this  book  puts  many  parts  of  it  on  the  rack,  and  even 
then  \\c  cannot  make  it  intelligibly  confess  what  we  desire.     Very 


ECCLESIASTES    IV.  4.  197 

different  from  all  this  is  the  close,  of  the  book,  where  he  develops 
the  ultimatum  to  which  his  mind  comes.  Christiana  have  a  spon- 
taneous feeling  that  such  a  state  of  despair  is  wrong;  and  yet, 
under  the  full  blaze  of  gospel-light,  and  all  its  revelations  of  the 
future,  more- or  less  of  them  indulge,  at  times,  the  like  feelings 
with  those  of  Coheleth.  More  pardonable  and  less  strange  were 
they  in  him,  because,  at  the  best,  he  could  only  see  by  twilight. 
The  full  strength  of  Christian  sentiment  we  see  in  Paul  and  Pe- 
ter, and  others  of  similar  hopes.  "  All  things  shall  work  together 
for  good,"  sustained  them  in  their  most  dark  and  dismal  hours. 
Coheleth  comes,  at  last,  to  the  same  conclusion ;  but  the  process 
in  him  was  slower,  and  attended  with  more  difficulty,  than  in  their 
minds.  Thus  much  for  the  dark  cloud  which  oppression  threw 
over  him.  Will  the  amassing  of  wealth  serve  to  heal  the  wound  ? 
We  shall  soon  see. 

(4)  Then  I  considered  all  toil  and  dexterity  of  doing,  that  it  becomes  mat- 
ter of  jealousy  toward  a  man  on  the  part  of  his  neighbor ;  this  too  is  vanity 
and  fruitless  effort. 

When  one  strives  to  outdo  his  neighbor  in  his  efforts  to  be  rich, 
he  often  becomes  an  object  of  that  neighbor's  jealousy  or  envy ; 
and  this  is  a  passion  so  bitter,  that  all  pursuits  which  excite  it 
become  worthless  by  reason  of  it.  Most  render  \fW3  here  emol- 
ument, profit.  But  in  2  :  21  it  has  the  sense  assigned  to  it  in 
the  version  above,  and  the  connection  and  sentiment  seem  to  be 
alike  in  both  passages.  Indeed,  dexterity  is  more  enviable  than 
wealth.  —  h3  stands  connected  with  T^an,  I saiu  .  .  .  that,  etc.; 
is  not  causal.  —  ton  is  fern.,  and  is  usual  when  the  neuter  (id)  is 
required.  It  means,  it  is,  or  it  becomes.  But  what  is  the  it, 
which  is  matter  of  jealousy  ?  The  answer  is,  both  the  toil  and 
the  dexterity.  These  are  included  under  son  =  that  thing.  — 
r^p,  most  explain  by  object  of  jealousy  ;  for  toil  and  dexterity 
are  not,  themselves,  jealousy.  Hitzig,  however,  insists  on  Benei- 
den,  the  envying  (active),  not  the  being  envied.     In  this  case,  we 

17* 


103  ECCLESIASTES    IV.  5,6. 

must  give  to  son  the  sense  of  it  occasions  —  a  possible,  but  not 
very  facile  meaning.  —  ^?"??  i^*1^?  if  we  adopt  Hitzig's  view,  is 
more  readily  explained,  "jp  often  standing  before  the  author  or 
cause  of  anything ;  and  so  we  may  translate  :  of  envying  by  his 
neighbor.  The  sense  is  good  ;  but  the  other  mode  of  interpreta- 
tion makes  it  equally  so.  a  would  then  mean  from  or  on  the 
part  of  designating  the  source  of  envy  or  jealousy  ;  a  meaning 
not  unfrequent  of  this  particle.  (See  Lex.  A.  2.  c.  For  the  sufF. 
*r-  to  the  noun,  see  §  89.  §  91.  9.)  If  such  be  the  consequences 
of  dexterous  toil  to  grow  rich,  it  may  well  be  said :  All  is  vanity 
and  an  empty  pursuit.  That  such  is  often  the  case  every  day 
bears  testimony.  But  to  the  author's  view  some  one  may  object 
(in  the  words  of  an  old  proverb),  that  still  none  but  fools  are 
inactive  and  lazy.     So  the  next  verse  : 

(5)  The  fool  foldeth  his  hands,  and  consumeth  his  own  flesh. 

To  fold  the  hands,  is  to  assume  the  position  of  one  unemployed 
and  idle.  —  And  consumeth  his  own  flesh,  not  —  sucks  his  own  fat, 
and  lives  on  it,  like  the  bear  —  but  destroys  himself  In  other 
word?,  through  idleness  he  lacks  the  means  of  healthful  nutriment, 
and  his  body  pines  away  under  its  deprivations.  He  is  felo  de  se  ; 
comp.  Ps.  27  :  2  ;  Mic.  3  : 3  ;  Is.  49  :  26  ;  Num.  12:12.  Such,  then, 
are  the  consequences  of  laziness  ;  and  if  so,  how,  it  is  asked,  can 
dexterous  toil  be  vanity,  which  supplies  the  wants  of  the  body  ? 
Such  seems  to  be  the  objection  made  to  the  preceding  view  of 
Coheleth  ;  and  by  the  activity  which  he  mentions,  it  is  implied 
that  some  serious  advantage  is  gained  which  the  foolish  idler 
mast  forego.  Idleness  is  its  own  punishment;  therefore  activity, 
which  makes  provision  for  want,  is  not  altogether  vanity,  as  Cohe- 
leth  had  called  it.  Such  is  the  logic  of  the  objector.  To  this,  an 
answer  is  made  forthwith: 

(6)  Better  is  *  handful  of  quiet,  than  two  hands  full  of  toil  and  fruitless 
•flbrt 


ECCLESIASTICS    IV.   7,8.  199 

The  reply  does  not  commend  the  course  of  the  idle  or  f 
man;  liow  could  it?     But  it  decides  that  quietude  in  life,  with  a 

modicum,  is  better  than  to  have  a  double  portion,  or  both  ha  ink 
full,  which  turns  out,  after  all,  to  be  but  vanity  and  fruitless  effort 
In  other  words:  It  is  better  to  be  contented  with  what  ran  be 
obtained  in  a  quiet  way,  and  without  bustle  and  strenuous  effort, 
than  to  toil  incessantly  in  order  to  get  both  hands  full,  i.  e.,  an 
overflowing  abundance.  Coheleth  would  choose,  for  himself, 
neither  the  extreme  of  the  bustling  covetous  man,  nor  yet  that 
of  the  idle  man,  whose  inaction  must  bring  him  to  want.  In  me- 
dio tutissimus.  Strive  for  a  sufficiency,  and  be  content  with  that ; 
for  this  can  be  procured  consistently  with  quiet.  Therefore 
neither  overdo,  nor  be  idle.  Both  are  vain  and  fruitless  in  their 
issue.  —  ttb-o  is  Inf.  nominas.  followed  (as  often)  by  a  Genitive. 
■nns,  in  the  Ace.  governed  by  a&a,  §  135.  3.  b.  Qamets  on  the 
penult  here,  on  account  of  the  pause.  d?2Sn,  used  only  in  the  dual, 
lit.  both  fists  or  clenched  hands,  referring  to  the  grasping  of  an 
object  with  both  hands  in  order  to  hold  it.  —  bis?,  etc.,  both 
nouns  in  Ace.  by  reason  of  tibii ,  as  above.  The  folly  of  a 
greedy  pursuit  of  wealth  is  still  further  illustrated  by  the  sequel. 

(7)  And  I  turned  and  considered  a  vanity  under  the  sun.  (8  J  There  is 
one  man,  and  no  second  ;  moreover  he  has  no  son  nor  brother ;  and  yet 
there  is  no  end  to  all  his  toil ;  his  eyes  also  are  not  satisfied  with  riches  : 
"  For  whom  then  [saith  he]  do  I  toil,  and  deprive  myself  of  enjoyment  ?  " 
This  too  is  vanity,  a  sad  undertaking  is  it. 

The  discourse  is  climactic.  Beginning  with  the  vanity  of 
excess  in  toil  in  order  to  acquire,  it  goes  on  here  to  illustrate  the 
extreme  folly  to  which  this  passion  will  lead.  The  writer 
begins,  in  v.  7,  by  calling  it  a  vanity,  he  ends  (v.  8)  by  calling 
it  a  sore  evil. 

And  not  a  second  is  exegetical  of  the  emphatic  meaning  of 
inx,  viz.,  one  only. — 'pfij,  being  in  the  Const,  state,  it  implies 
after  it  one  or  each  of  the  two  preceding  nouns.  —  WS  takes  a 


200  ECCLESIASTES    IV.  9,10. 

sing.  fem.  verb  after  it,  being  the  plur.  of  things,  and  not  of 
r,  rums,  §  143,  3;  see  1  Sam.  4  :  15 ;  Ps.  37 :  21 ;  Jer.  2  :  15. 
There  is  no  need  of  the  Qeri  ftiS. — *($$,  Ace.  §  135,  3,  b. — 
And  from  whom,  etc.,  i.  e.,  the  miser  is  introduced  as  exclaiming 
thus,  "iwX  being  omitted,  as  often  in  other  cases.  The  statement 
is  thus  rendered  more  vivid  and  striking.  —  ^dS3  is  as  often  = 
myself.  —  5*i  1^)3 ,  the  first  is  in  the  Const,  state,  and  lit,  we  must 
render:  an  undertaking  of  sadness  or  misfortune.  —  #->?},  is  it> 
as  usual,  fem.  for  neut.,  and  it  means  the  whole  business,  or  the 
whole  affair  in  question. 

Having  adverted  emphatically  to  the  loneliness  of  the  miser, 
he  pursues  this  view  of  the  subject  further,  and  describes  the 
evils  that  result  from  such  an  insulated  position. 

(9)  Two  are  better  than  one,  because  they  have  a  good  reward  on  account 
of  their  toil. 

Ileiligst.  says  that  mrx  does  not  mean  quia  here,  but  is  to  be 
referred  as  a  relative  pronoun  to  the  preceding  D?3d.  But  the 
verse  then  would  run  thus :  Better  are  two  than  one,  to  which 
[two]  there  is  a  reward,  etc.  But  this  would  defeat  the  speaker's 
object,  for  it  would  limit  better  only  to  such  two  as  might  have  a 
reward.  The  assertion  is  more  general.  —  "NgM,  because,  is  a 
very  common  use  of  the  word,  see  Lex.  B.  3.  What  the 
reward  in  question  is,  he  now  goes  on  to  illustrate  by  some 
particulars. 

(10)  For  if  they  fall,  the  one  shall  raise  up  his  fellow,  but  woe  to  him  — 
the  one  who  shall  fall  —  should  there  then  be  no  second  to  raise  him  up. 

If  they  faU,  that  is,  either  one  or  the  other;  but  not  both  at 
the  Bame  time,  for  then  no  helper  is  left.  —  ft^K  is  two  words 
compounded,  viz.,  ft  ■>»,  woe  to  him.  "inxn  being  in  apposition 
with  the  pron.  in  ft,  by  implication  the  h  prefix  is  carried  on 
mentally,  'so  as  to  Btand  before  it.  Falling  need  not  be  confined 
merely  to  Btumbling  physically,  but  may  be  extended  to  any  case 
where  a  friend  in  time  of  need  is  a  good. 


ECCLLSIASTES    IV.   11,  12.  201 

(11)  Moreover,  if  two  lie  together,  then  they  have  warmth ;  but  to  one 

aloue,  how  shall  there  be  warmth  ? 

The  nights  in  Palestine,  -when  the  cold  is  nearly  approaching 
to  frost,  become  to  the  feelings  severely  cold,  by  reason  of  the 
warmth  at  mid-day.  It  would  seem,  from  Ex.  22  :  2G,  that  a 
man's  cloak  or  outer  garment  was  all  the  covering  usually  pro- 
vided for  sleeping.  The  point  aimed  at  in  the  text  becomes,  in 
this  view,  quite  conspicuous.  With  us,  provided  as  we  are  with 
nbundance  of  covering,  the  allegation  of  the  verse  seems  com- 
paratively tame.  But  the  Hebrews  slept  on  a  floor-mat  at  the 
best,  and  not  on  feather  beds ;  and  they  had  few  if  any  blankets, 
made  for  the  purpose  of  procuring  warmth  by  night.  Many 
refer  the  text  to  conjugal  union  in  sleeping ;  but  the  sentiment  is 
more  general,  and  the  writer  is  not  discussing  the  subject  of 
matrimony.  The  object  is  merely  to  illustrate  the  sentiment  he 
designs  to  confirm,  by  examples  taken  from  the  common  occur- 
rences of  life.  —  nrn,  lit.  then  is  it  warm,  for  *j  then,  see  §  152, 
B.  d.  —  Err? ,  Imperf.  with  A.  of  n-qn ,  Qamets  by  reason  of  the 
pause ;  see  §  66,  Note  3,  also  5,  e.  g. 

(12)  And  if  one  prevails  over  him  who  is  alone,  two  shall  stand  firm  be- 
fore him  ;  and  a  threefold  cord  is  not  hastily  broken. 

The  verb.  tjpT^  is  here  impersonal,  and  therefore  requires  the 
indefinite  one,  any  man,  before  it.  —  ^T}^  is  exegetical  of  the 
preceding  sufF.  i  —  used  anticipatively,  and  means  the  lonely  one. 
Stand  firm  before  him  is  used  to  express  successful  resistance  ; 
see  2  K.  10  :  4;  Josh.  10  :  8.  —  Wrtft,  designating  a  particular 
substance,  it  takes  the  article.  —  E&OTtti,  trebled,  Part.  Pual  of 
the  denom.  verb.  —  t^ttt'l,  with  haste,  used  adverbially.  That 
is,  if  it  be  an  advantage  that  two  should  combine,  still  more  may 
be  expected  from  the  addition  of  a  third.  The  last  clause  wa  3 
doubtless  a  common  proverb. 

Thus  much  for  the  advantages  of  society  or  union.  The 
lonely  miser  fails  of  securing  these.     His  wealth,  gotten  by  the 


\ 


202  ECCLESIASTES    IV.   13,  14. 

relinquishment  of  the  assistance  and  consolation  which  he  often 
needs,  is  indeed  but  vanity. 

But  how  fares  it  with  the  ambitious  man?  Do  the  honors 
which  he  covets,  and  which  he  successfully  strives  to  win,  render 
him  secure,  and  stable,  and  renowned  ?     We  shall  soon  see. 

(13)  Better  is  a  youth  indigent  and  sagacious,  than  a  king  old  and  foolish, 
Who  cares  not  to  be  any  more  admonished. 

tin,  sagacious,  cunning,  the  secondary  and  lower  sense  of  the 
word.  —  r^ ,  not  only  novit,  scivit,  but  also  to  care  for,  to  have 
regard  for;  see  Lex.  No.  7.  All  sorts  of  kings,  from  Nimrod 
down  to  Rehoboam,  and  even  to  Joash,  have  been  conjectured 
here,  in  order  to  make  out  the  old  king  mentioned.  It  is  not 
absolutely  necessary,  indeed,  to  make  out  any  other  than  merely 
a  case  supposed  by  way  of  illustration.  If,  however,  any  suppose 
that  Solomon  should  be  regarded  as  the  author  of  the  book,  is  it 
not  very  ♦mprobable  that  he  would  characterize  himself  as  old 
and  foolish  ?  But  a  later  writer,  who  read  such  an  account  of 
Solomon  as  is  given  in  1  K.  11  :  1 — 13,  might  well  deem  him  to 
be  old  and  foolish,  and  disinclined  to  hear  wholesome  admonition. 
It  was  not  enough  to  have  seven  hundred  wives  and  three  hun- 
dred concubines,  many  of  them  heathen,  but  Solomon  built 
heathen  temples  in  the  face  of  the  temple  of  God,  and  wor- 
shipped in  them,  1  K.  11  :  5.  The  young  sagacious  man  seems 
not  improbably  to  be  Jeroboam,  as  we  shall,  see  in  the  sequel. 
b  9t£ ,  lit.  cares  not  in  respect  to.  The  Sia ,  at  the  beginning, 
does  not  mean  better  in  a  moral  sense,  but  more  fortunate. 

(14)  For  from  the  house  of  fugitives  he  goes  forth  to  reign:  for  in  his 
own  kingdom  he  was  born  a  poor  man. 

fi*cn,  as  appears  by  the  tn  (article  with  Qamets)  was  doubt- 
Less  understood  by  the  punctators  as  put  for  D^noxn,  the  im- 
prisoned. Hence  our  version  out  of  prison;  and  so  most  of  the 
critics  have  translated.     That  k  is  sometimes  dropped  in  such 


ECCLESIASTES    IV.   15.  203 

cases,  is  clear  from  2  Chron.  22  :  o,  comp.  with  2  K.  8  :  28  ;  Is. 
13  :  20.  But  if  ^Dx  is  the  stem  of  the  word,  we  might  exped 
BWD*  here,  as  in  Judg.  16  :  21,  25  (Kethibh),  and  ( ten.  S9  :  20 
(Qeri).     On  the  other  hand,  no  change  in  the  text   is  really 

needed;  for  d"n"no  gives  an  apposite  sense;  see  in  Jer.  17  :  13; 
2  :  21,  where  it  means  departed  from.  The  general  sense  of  *tiO 
is  to  turn  away,  recede,  either  to  avoid  danger,  or  to  seek  a  place 
of  safety.  Fugitives  is  our  nearest  word ;  for  men  become  so  in 
order  to  avoid  danger,  or  to  find  safety.  If,  now,  Jeroboam  be 
the  cunning  youth  in  question,  the  language  applies  fitly.  He 
fled  to  Egypt  for  safety,  1  K.  11  :  40.  Moreover,  Egypt  was 
the  common  asylum  of  fugitives  from  Judea,  Jer.  26 :  21  ;  24 : 8  ; 
and  in  later  times,  Joseph  with  Mary  and  the  child  Jesus  went 
thither,  Matt.  2  :  13 — 22.  From  Egypt  did  Jeroboam  come  to 
reign  over  ten  tribes  in  Israel.  He  was  born  in  Judea,  and  his 
mother,  at  the  time  of  his  flight,  was  a  widow,  1  K.  11  :  26.  As 
he  was  a  servant  of  Solomon,  he  was  probably  poor ;  but  his 
sagacity  soon  gave  him  the  place  of  an  officer  under  him.  When 
he  "  lifted  up  his  hand  "  against  the  old  king,  Solomon  sought  to 
kill  him,  and  he  fled  to  Egypt,  the  house  or  asylum  of  refugees. 
1  K.  11  :  26,  40.  The  second  13  is  causal  here,  stating  a  ground 
or  reason  of  his  flight.  In  the  kingdom  over  which  he  afterwards 
reigned,  he  was  born  poor,  and  so  had  not  the  means,  at  first,  of 
exciting  and  carrying  out  a  revolt.  On  this  ground  he  became  a 
fugitive,  until  opportunity  of  returning  with  a  prospect  of  success 
occurred.  On  his  return,  the  people,  disgusted  by  the  new  king 
and  his  exactions,  hailed  Jeroboam  with  joy.     So  the  sequel. 

(15)  I  saw  all  the  living,  who  walked  beneath  the  sun,  with  the  youth,  the 
second,  who  stood  up  in  his  room. 

Living,  i.  e.,  living  men,  those  who  lived  at  that  period.  All 
the  living,  is  hyperbole  in  form ;  but  every  reader  feels  at  once 
that  it  is  merely  a  strong  expression  of  the  idea  of  great  num- 
bers, yet  still  such  as  belonged  to  Palestine,  and  not  all  the  living 


204  LCCLESIASTES    IV.   16. 

of  the  whole  human  race.  See  the  like  in  Matt.  3  :  5.  Walked 
under  the  sun,  moved  hither  and  thither  on  the  earth.  —  fcS>,  with, 
in  the  usual  sense  of  association.  Heiligs.  takes  ds>  in  the  sense 
of  comparison  —  the  living  compared  with  the  youth,  etc.  But 
what  sense  can  be  made  of  this  I  do  not  see.  Clearly  the  mean- 
ing is,  that  he  saw  the  populace  thronging  around  the  youth  who 
was  to  be  second,  i.  e.,  to  be  successor  to  the  old  king,  instead  of 
his  own  son,  who  retained  only  two  tribes.  The  article  in  lb*Ji 
makes  it  plain  that  the  ^iV;  of  v.  13  is  referred  to  here.  So  ^lEJitt, 
in  apposition  and  explicative,  also  takes  the  article.  The  second 
king  may  mean  the  next  which  follows  the  old  one,  or  comes 
after  him  in  the  throne ;  but  a  somewhat  different  sense  will  be 
adverted  to  in  the  sequel,  v.  16.  To  stand  up,  is  to  stand  firm, 
to  establish  one's  self.  In  his  room,  i.  e.,  in  the  room  of  the  old 
king. 

(16)  There  is  no  end  to  all  the  people,  to  all  before  whom  he  was  [whose 
leader  he  was]  ;  moreover,  those  who  come  afterwards  will  not  rejoice  in 
him.     Truly  this  also  is  vanity  and  fruitless  effort. 

Before  whom  he  was.  He  is  describing  the  popularity  of  the 
young  king.  He  has  just  said  that  all  the  people  are  with  him, 
and  now  he  adds  that  he  is  leader  —  is  before  —  a  mass  of  men 
not  to  be  numbered  —  there  is  no  end  to  them.  That  the  Heb. 
idiom  readily  admits  this  sense,  may  be  easily  shown.  In  1  K. 
10  :  21,  it  is  twice  said  that  half  of  the  people  were  after  such 
and  such  a  one,  t.  e.,  followed  him  as  their  leader.  In  Num. 
27  :  17,  the  leader  is  characterized  by  saying:  "  He  shall  go  out 
before  them  [the  people],  and  come  in  before  them.''''  The  same 
i<  said  of  David,  1  Sam.  18  :  16  ;  also  of  Solomon,  2  Chron.  1  :  10. 
■cm  makes  the  Buff.  pron.  en  a  relative.  §  121,  1.  —  rrn  relates, 
(.!'  course,  to  the  young  king.  Thus  we  gain  a  consistent  and 
continuous  sentiment;  and  so  Hitzig  and  Knobel,  while  Ewald 
and  Heiligs.  refer  -:3b  to  time,  which  appears  to  be  altogether 
irrelevant.  —  bWhnitri,  the  after-comers,  i.  e.,  those  who  came  on 
the  stage  of  action  after  the  elevation  of  the  young  man  to  the 


ECCLESIASTICS    IV.    16.  205 

throne,  will  take  a  different  course  from  thai  of  those  wh< 
rounded  him  with  huzzaings  at  the  outset.  Such  v 
with  Jeroboam.  The  terrible  message  communicated  to  him  by 
the  prophet  Abijah  (1  K.  14  :  7 — L6),  and  the  testimony  con- 
cerning him  in  2  K.  17  :  21,  show  that  with  all  the  good  and 
pious  among  the  ten  tribes,  he  must  have  been  held  in  abhorrence 
for  his  gross  idolatry.  While  the  mourning  of  Israel  over  the 
grave  of  his  infant  child  is  particularly  related  (1  K.  14  :  1-S), 
not  a  word  of  this  nature  is  spoken  about  him,  on  the  occasion 
of  his  death.  The  opposite  of  regret  is  implied  in  1  K.  14  :  10, 
11.  The  wars  which  he  waged  (1  K.  14  :  19)  must  have  occa- 
sioned heavy  taxes  to  be  laid  upon  the  people,  and  this  would 
render  him  odious ;  for  in  the  light  of  a  conqueror  he  is  not  pre- 
sented, and  conquest  only  could  secure  popularity  in  such  a  case. 
So  we  may  conclude,  with  our  text,  that  they,  viz.,  the  people 
who  lived  under  him,  would  not  rejoice  in  him.  Tliis,  too,  is 
vanity;  truly  so,  because  the  object  of  his  rebellion  and  treason 
was  not  attained,  viz.,  a  quiet  settlement  on  a  throne.  Such  is 
the  end  of  all  projects  of  mere  ambition.  It  is  fruitless  effort. 
The  ^3  before  the  last  clause  has  made  some  difficulty.  But  it 
is  unnecessary.  —  ■©,  at  the  head  of  a  sentence  or  clause,  not 
unfrequently  is  an  intensive  (§  152,  II.  d.  Lex.  *3,  6  c),  and  is 
equivalent  to  the  Lat.  imo,  or  the  German  ja,  i.  e.,  =  yea,i/id<<jd, 
truly;  see  Is.  32  :  13  ;  15  :  1 ;  Ps.  71  :  23  ;  77  :  12  ;  Ex.  22  :  22  ; 
Job  8:6.  So  Ewald,  Gramm.  §  320,  b.  (fifth  edition),  who  has 
finely  illustrated  this  use  of  the  particle,  which  is  imperfectly 
treated  of  in  Ges.  Gramm.  and  Lex.  —  D3  denotes  addition, 
cumulation;  also  this,  or  (as  we  must  express  it  here  in  our 
idiom)  this  too,  this  also,  i.  e.,  this  matter  must  be  added  to  the 
list  of  vanities.     Ambition,  then,  comes  out  badly  at  last. 

If  we  are  correct  in  referring  the  old  Icing  to  Solomon  under 
the  guidance  of  his  heathen  wives,  and  the  young  man  to  Jero- 
boam, there  still  remains  some  difficulty  in  the  case.  Rehoboam, 
Solomon's  son  and  successor,  is,  to  all  appearance,  not  brought 

18 


206  ECCLESIASTES    IV.   10. 

to  view;  and  this  seems  somewhat  strange.  Perhaps,  however, 
there  is  in  reality  a  reference  to  him  implied  by  the  ^ad,  which 
designates  Jeroboam  in  v.  15.  I  have  supposed  above  (on  v.  1&) 
that  it  may  mean  the  successor  of  Solomon,  as  king  to  the  great 
mass  of  the  Hebrew  nation.  But  I  do  not  see,  on  the  whole, 
why  we  may  not  suppose  that  ijq}  designates  Jeroboam,  and 
refers  to  Rehoboam,  as  being  implied  by  the  first,  because  his 
birth  and  rank  gave  him  the  lawful  title  to  the  kingdom.  A 
second  nVj  would  seem  to  imply  that  there  was  a.  first  *ib*  ;  and 
if  so,  this  must  have  been  Rehoboam. 

Hitzig  concedes  the  applicability  of  vs.  13 — 16  to  Solomon 
and  Jeroboam ;  but  the  fact  that  Rehoboam  is  not  adverted  to, 
he  thinks  so  strange,  that  we  must  seek  elsewhere  for  an  expla- 
nation of  the  passage.  Accordingly,  he  goes  down  to  the  time 
of  Ptolemy  Euergetes,  king  of  Egypt  (fl.  246 — 221  b.  a),  and 
finds  that  the  high-priest  of  that  time,  Onias,  is  represented  as 
old  and  foolish  by  Josephus  (Antiqq.  xii.  4),  and  that  his 
nephew,  Joseph,  is  described  as  being  a  shrewd  manager,  who 
wrested  his  office  from  his  uncle,  and  then,  in  consequence  of 
being  farmer  of  the  Syrian  tribute  revenue,  he  afterwards 
became  unpopular.  He  even  finds  in  <S?i\6Ka,  Joseph's  native 
place,  another  form  of Phigela,  an  Ionian  town  built  by  fugitives, 
as  the  name  imports.  This,  then,  as  Hitzig  supposes,  is  the  P*»a 
fii-ui&n  from  which  the  young  man  comes.  All  this  is  ingenious, 
no  doubt,  yet  not  very  satisfactory  ;  for  first,  there  is  no  evidence, 
worthy  of  credit,  that  any  part  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures  was 
written  so  late  as  246 — 221  b.  c.  ;  and  secondly,  Onias  was  not 
king,  while  the  old  and  foolish  man  of  our  text  is  king;  nor  was 
Joseph  a  king,  who  ousted  and  succeeded  him.  Still,  it  is 
mainly  on  this  ground  that  Hitzig  puts  the  authorship  of  Cohe- 
leth  down  to  the  time  of  Euergetes  (Vorbemerk.  §  4).  Surely 
this  has  slender  support,  and  is,  on  the  whole,  a  real  r^i  X$9. 
Nothing  but  desperation  in  neology,  as  it  seems  to  me,  could 
have  contrived  such  an  interpretation  as  this.     In  fact,  a  con- 


ECCLESIASTES    IV.    17.  207 

summate  Hebrew  philologist,  as  Ilitzig  clearly  is,  ought  noi  bo 
risk  his  reputation  on  such  a  fantasy.  How  could  be  reasonably 
expect  that  others  who  should  investigate  for  themselves  would 
be  satisfied  with  such  a  criticism?  I  trust  that  few  of  such  will 
be  brought  to  believe  that  the  office  of  spriest  and  a  king  is  the. 
same.  And  whoever  looks  at  Josephus's  account  of  Joseph  will 
find  a  very  different  character  from  that  of  the  iV*. 

§  8.  In  what  Way,  under  such  Circumstances,  a  Man  ought  to 
demean  himself  in  respect  to  the  Ordinances  of  God. 

Chaps.  IV.  17— V.  G. 

[Thus  far  all  has  been  description  of  the  evils  and  disappointments  of  life, 
interspersed  with  a  few  incidental  remarks.  A  new  turn  is  now  given  to  the 
discourse.  It  becomes  preceptive  and  monitory.  The  first  great  question  for 
a  man  who  reverences  God  is  :  "  How  shall  I  demean  myself  toward  him, 
when  his  providence  has  placed  me  in  the  midst  of  such  trials  and  disap- 
pointments, from  which  there  is  no  escape  ?  Shall  I  shun  his  presence,  and 
cease  to  worship  him,  since  I  despair  of  any  solid  good  in  the  present  life  ? 
If  not,  how  can  I  propitiate  him,  or  how  worship  him  acceptably  ?  "  This 
brings  the  question  to  a  point  where  Coheleth  feels  it  needful  to  interpose 
and  give  his  advice.  He  addresses  the  questioner  in  the  way  of  precepts 
and  precautions.  Hence  the  second  person  (which  has  not  before  appeared) 
in  the  precepts  that  follow.  As  the  transition  is  so  great  from  4  :  16,  with 
the  preceding  context  to  the  subject  in  4  :  17,  it  is  wonderful  that  those  who 
divided  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  into  chapters  should  not  have  joined  4  :  17 
with  what  follows  in  Chap.  V.,  as  is  done  in  our  English  version.  The 
present  division  in  the  Hebrew  helps  to  bewilder  the  reader.] 

(17)  Keep  thy  foot  when  thou  goest  to  the  house  of  God  ;  and  to  draw 
near  to  hear  is  better  than  the  sacrificial  feast  which  is  given  by  fools  ;  for 
they  know  not  how  to  be  sad. 

In  Tpbrn,  the  vowels  are  adapted  to  the  sing.  *jkf3,  as  the 
Masoretic  marginal  note  indicates.  With  the  latter  agree  the 
versions  of  the  Sept.,  Syr.,  Vulg.,  and  most  of  the  modern  critics. 
See  the  sing.,  also,  in  like  cases,  in  Frov.  1:15;  4  :  2G.     Keep 


208  ECCLESIASTES    IV.   17. 

thy  foot  =  look  well  to  thy  going;  seek  to  go  safely  and  surely 
by  looking  well  to  thy  steps.  Goest  to  the  house  of  God,  seems 
to  imply  that  both  the  adviser  and  those  whom  he  designs  to 
instruct  live  in  the  vicinity  of  the  temple,  where  they  often  and 
habitually  worship.  It  seems  probable  from  this  that  the  author 
wrote  this  book  at  Jerusalem,  or  in  its  vicinity,  or  at  least  had 
lived  there.  —  ^l?*!,  Inf.  abs.  Piel,  and  so  it  maybe  of  any  mode 
or  person,  §  128,  4,  6  ;  here  it  means  the  approaching  or  drawing 
near.  Here,  too,  it  is  the  subject  of  the  sentence ;  which  is 
rare,  §  128,  4,  n.  1.  comp.  Job  40  :  2 ;  Ezek.  1  :  14.  The  object 
is  to  show  what  keeping  the  foot,  etc.,  signifies.  An  approaching 
to  hear,  denotes  entrance  into  the  interior  temple,  where  the 
priests  read  the  law,  and  uttered  their  exhortations ;  see  Deut. 
33  :  10 ;  Mic.  3  :  11  ;  Mai.  2  :  6,  7,  comp.  Acts  3  :  11.  —  nwo, 
t.  e.,  yn  before  the  Inf.  rn  (from  *jW),  which  is  a  contraction  of 
rsn  fern.  Inf.  Before  this  word  (rn"?)  S-io  is  plainly  implied 
(because  e  is  comparative,  §  117,  1),  but  it  is  not  here  ex- 
pressed; as,  e.  g.,in  9  :  17  ;  Ezek.  15  :  2  ;  Is.  10  :  10,  al.,  where 
it  is  omitted.  Accordingly  I  have  rendered  it  —  better  than  the 
instituting  or  giving  by  fools  of  a  sacrificial  feast.  d"^D3f1 
(article  before  a  whole  class)  is  the  agent  or  subject  of  nn  ;  but 
as  it  is  impossible,  in  our  language,  to  imitate  the  Heb.  construc- 
tion, I  have  designated  the  agency  in  the  translation  thus  :  by 
fools.  That  H31  (in  Pause  Jint)  may  and  does  often  mean  the 
feast  on  a  part  of  the  victim  which  is  offered,  is  plain ;  see  Lex. 
and  comp.  Pro  v.  17:1;  Is.  22  :  13  ;  Deut.  33  :  19.  Here;  as 
the  offerers  are  plural  (fools),  and  the  feast  singular,  it  is  prob- 
ably indicated  that  while  one  victim  is  sacrificed  and  feasted  on, 
there  Is  a  company  who  sit  down  at  the  feast  upon  it.  Such, 
indeed,  was  the  usage  ;  comp.  1  Sam.  9:13;  2  K.  1 :  9,  41.  If 
this  were  not  meant,  we  should  expect  O'TDt  in  correspondence 
with  -"b"-~n.  The  *3  causal,  that  begins  the  last  clause,  indi- 
cates :>  reason  why  the  >;:i<jrcrs  in  the  preceding  clause  are 
called  fools.     When   they  go  to   the    temple,  instead   of   going 


ECCLESIASTES    IV.  17.  209 

there  to  be  instructed,  instead  of  entering  the  inner  court  and 
listening  to  prayers  and  instructions,  they  content  themselves 
with  staying  in  the  outer  court,  and  there  holding  their  sacri- 
ficial feast,  accompanied  by  their  friends,  for  the  sake  of  social 
enjoyment.  There  they  eat  and  drink  for  pleasure,  and  arc 
merry  withal.  This  the  writer  opposes  to,  and  contrasts  with, 
that  sadness  which  becomes  a  penitent  who  goes  to  the  temple  to 
confess  his  sins,  to  offer  sacrifice  for  expiation,  and  to  hear  the 
monitions  of  divine  truth.  All  this  imports  godly  sorrow  and 
penitence,  with  desire  to  be  corrected.  But  fools  neglect  this 
part  of  duty.  They  go  to  the  temple  to  keep  up  appearances  as 
worshippers,  but  mainly  for  the  pleasure  of,  the  social  feast 
This  is  the  doing  of  fools,  and  not  of  men  who  act  reasonably. 
They  are  full  of  exhilaration  and  merriment,  and  do  not  feel  or 
exhibit  any  of  the  sadness  which  contrition  occasions.  That  rn 
(in  pause  3^)  often  means  sadness  is  made  clear  in  Lex.  Cases 
in  point,  which  cannot  be  mistaken  as  to  the  meaning  of  rv!fe)J 
rn,  may  be  found  in  2  Sam.  12 :  18  ;  and  the  opposite,  viz.,  nri'5 
nia,  in  Ecc.  3  :  12  above.  As  the  latter  clearly  means  to  enjoy 
good  or  procure  pleasure,  so  the  former  means,  lit.,  to  make  sad, 
i.  e.,  to  demean  one's  self  with  sadness.  The  idea  of  a  suffering 
condition  stands  connected  with  it ;  for  sadness  comes  through 
this.  But  it  is  by  no  means  confined  to  physical  suffering ;  it 
extends  to  mental.  Fools  know  not  how  to  sorrow  for  the  sins 
which  occasioned  the  tint  in  question.  But  he  who  keeps  hit 
foot — i,  e.,  looks  well  to  his  goings  —  will  avoid  their  folly. 
He  will  go  up  to  the  temple  with  becoming  solemnity,  and  will 
be  sorrowful  or  sad  for  his  sins,  and  listen  to  admonition. 

This  explanation  I  owe  to  Hitzig.  Its  correctness,  as  to  truly 
representing  the  Heb.  idiom,  cannot  well  be  questioned.  But 
others  translate  differently,  and  after  the  old  fashion  :  Knob.  : 
That  do  not  concern  themselves  about  evil-doing;  Ewald  :  Because 
they  know  not  that  they  do  evil;  Heiligs. :  Nam  nesciuitt  se 
facers  malum.     But  what  is  the  evil,  in  this  case  ?     Not  the 

18* 


210  ECCLESIASTES    V.   1. 

mere  offering  of  sacrifice  ;  for  that  the  Law  commands.  If  real 
ignorance  of  evil  is  implied  by  the  last  clause,  would  not  this 
palliate  instead  of  enhancing  their  fault  ?  To  put  them  in  fault, 
they  must  neglect  some  known  duty.  When  they  feast  and 
carouse,  and  sorrow  not  for  sin,  they  neglect  the  obvious  duty  of 
one  who  brings  a  sacrifice.  Therefore  they  act  foolishly,  and 
therefore  are  they  called  fools.  The  word  dis"iii  is  not  confined 
to  mere  mental  perception ;  for  the  word  also  means  advertere 
ammum,  providere,  curare,  to  take  knowledge  of  a  thing,  in  the 
sense  of  looking  after  it  and  caring  for  it ;  see  Lex.  s.  v.  No.  7. 
The  above  modes  of  exegesis,  then,  are  conformed  neither  to  the 
Heb.  idiom,  nor  to  the  exigencies  of  the  case.  In  the  other 
mode  of  interpretation,  we  obtain  an  excellent  sentiment: 
'  When  thou  goest  to  worship  God,  go  not  to  indulge  in  levity 
and  mirth,  but  to  humble  thyself  and  be  sad  for  thy  sins.  Fools 
stay  in  the  outer  court,  where  they  can  indulge  in  the  first ;  go 
thou  into  the  inner  one,  where  thou  canst  be  made  better  by 
sadness.'  See  this  sentiment  fully  and  explicitly  repeated  and 
confirmed  in  Ecc.  7  :  3 — 6.  It  is,  indeed,  plain  that  men  are  not 
fools  for  offering  an  appointed  sacrifice ;  nor  yet  from  mere 
ignorance  about  its  true  value  ;  but  they  are  fools  for  refusing  to 
receive  the  obvious  instruction  which  such  a  transaction  implicitly 
gives,  viz.,  that  the  offerer  should  be  penitent,  and  desirous  of 
admonition. 

Chap.  Y. 

(1 )  Be  not  hasty  with  thy  mouth,  and  let  not  thy  heart  urge  thee  on  to 
vords  before  God;  for  God  is  in  heaven,  and  thou  art  on  earth,  there- 
fore Let  thy  words  be  few. 

The  preceding  verve  brings  to  view  the  subject  of  sacrifice; 
but  here  we  have  the  duly  of  prayer,  which  would  naturally 
follow  on.  Caution  is  given  against  hasty  and  thoughtless  utter- 
ance of  words  in  prayer.     Be  not  hasty  with  thy  mouth;,  5pB  is, 


ECCLESIASTICS    V.  2.  211 

like  13U3  bs,  Ps.  15  :  >),  lit.  means,  on  thy  mouth.  We  say  :  Let 
no  slander  be  on  thy  tongue;  but  the  Hebrews  have  extended 
the  usage  further,  and  speak  of  the  mouth  in  genera)  as  the  Beat 

or  source  of  utterance,  or  on  which  utterance  rests.  — 12*1,  a 

'  t  r  ' 

word,  i.  e.,  any  word,  any  one  thing  in  thy  prayer.  Before  God, 
here  means  in  the  temple  where  he  peculiarly  dwelt ;  but  the 
spirit  of  the  precept  will  apply  to  prayer  anywhere,  or  at  any 
time.  God  is  in  heaven  and  thou  on  earth;  i.  e.,  God  is  infinitely 
exalted  above  all  created  things,  but  thou  art  only  one  of  the 
latter,  and  on  his  footstool;  comp.  Ps.  115  :  3.  Let  thy  words 
be  few ;  i.  e.,  do  not  speak  much  and  at  random,  as  men  in  light 
and  free  conversation  with  familiar  friends  and  equals  are  apt  to 
do.  Speak  as  penetrated  by  reverential  awe  of  the  exalted 
majesty  and  power  of  God.  —  &hB?»5  a  Pilel  form  from  B§£, 
fewness;  used  only  in  the  later  Hebrew. 

(2)  For  a  dream  cometli  with  much  occupation,  and  the  voice  of  a  fool 
with  a  multitude  of  words. 

}yj  (not  nb^p),  not  hand-labor,  but  occupation  in  business 
that  tries  and  perplexes  the  mind.  Common  experience  shows 
how  often  the  fact  here  stated  is  verified.  And  a  fool's  voice, 
etc.,  i.  e.,  only  the  foolish  prattle  and  outpour  a  flood  of  words. 
The  two  parts  of  the  verse  include  a  comparison,  for  the  Hebrew 
often  makes  a  comparison  with  only  i  between  the  members  of 
it,  which  in  such  cases  may  well  be  rendered  and  so,  or  and  thus; 
§  152,  B.  3.  If  the  phrase  were  filled  out,  3  or  *,3  would  be 
inserted  between  the  two  parts.  The  intimation  of  the  verse  is, 
that  dreamy  visions  have  as  much  substance  as  the  prattle  of 
the  fool;  or,  in  other  words,  overdoing  in  business  or  in  talking 
is  followed  by  a  dreamy  sequel. 

The  two  preceding  verses  are  not  directed  against  earnest, 
repeated,  or  even  long  prayers,  where  they  proceed  from  the 
heart,  and  are  uttered  with  holy  earnestness  and  fervor.  The, 
Saviour's  words  in  Matt.  6  :  6 — 13  are  a  good  comment  on  the 


212  ECCLESIASTKS    V.  3-5. 

true  meaning.  It  is  much,  and  light,  and  thoughtless  loquacity 
before  God,  which  is  disapproved  and  rebuked,  as  showing  want 
of  due  reverence.  This  is  the  ground  or  reason  ("Q  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  verse)  why  the  words  should  be  few. 

(3)  When  thou  shalt  make  a  vow  unto  God,  make  no  delay  to  pay  it,  for 
there  is  no  pleasure  in  fools  ;  whatever  thou  shalt  vow,  pay  it. 

That  is,  only  fools  delay  to  fulfil  or  to  pay  their  vows ;  do  thou 
not  be  one  of  them.  Make  a  vow,  we  say  in  English ;  but  the 
Hebrews  said,  vow  a  vow.  We  can  say  the  same,  but  commonly 
do  not.  No  pleasure,  i.  e.,  there  is  no  complacency  on  the  part 
of  God  toward  the  conduct  of  such  as  neglect  their  vows.  —  "Vnn , 
Imperf.  of  "na ,  answers  to  the  conditional  future  here. 

(4)  It  is  better  that  thou  shouldest  not  vow,  than  that  thou  shouldest  vow 
and  not  pay. 

In  other  words :  As  vows  are  a  voluntary  thing,  and  not  a 
prescribed  duty,  it  is  much  better  to  forbear  making  them,  than 
to  make  and  then  violate  them ;  for  by  this  one  incurs  the  guilt 
of  falsehood  or  perjury.  —  "rfaprtga ,  a  is  the  comparative  =  than  ; 
tf  =  -dx ,  as  often  in  this  book.  All  three  Dagheshes  arise 
from  omitted  letters,  viz.,  5,  *1,  and  3 . 

The  two  preceding  verses  have  respect  to  what  often  took 
place  among  worshippers.  They  asked  certain  things  of  God, 
and  vowed  to  render  certain  offerings  of  gratitude  in  case  they 
obtained  them.  It  was  natural  to  associate  such  acts  with  the 
subject  of  prayer,  as  all  belonged  to  the  subject  of  religion. 

(5)  Let  not  thy  mouth  bring  punishment  upon  thy  flesh  ;  and  say  not 
before  the  messenger  that  it  was  an  error.  Why  should  God  be  displeased 
on  account  of  thy  words,  and  destroy  the  work  of  thy  hands  1 

Nearly  all  the  expositors  translate  R^ttrta  by  cause  to  sin.  To 
this  there  are  several  objections :  (1 )  The  Old  Test,  does  not 
employ  *\iDa  in  the  sense  of  o-ap£  in  the  New  Test. ;  the  Jlesh,  in 


ECCLESIA  S  T  E S    V  .  5.  2  ' 8 

the  Heb.  Scriptures  is  not  the  sinner,  but  the  mind,  heart,  soul, 
are  the  sinners.  (2)  This  mode  of  explaining  docs  no!  well 
coincide  with  the  last  part  of  the  verse,  which  appears  to  a  k 
the  question  (in  the  way  of  remonstrance)  why  the  punishment 
in  question  need  be  incurred.  The  destroying  of  one* S  handi- 
ivork,  seems  to  aim  at  expressing,  for  substance,  the  same  thing 
as  the  punishment  of  the  flesh.  Ges.  (Lex.),  under  Hiph.  of  the 
ver b,  has  not,  indeed,  given  the  meaning  assigned  to  it  above; 
but  under  nxun  (the  noun)  he  has  given  us  poena,  calamitas, 
as  one  of  the  meanings,  i.  e.,  the  consequence  of  sin.  The  same 
is  the  case  with  "jis,  which  signifies  crimen,  and  very  often  also 
poena,  calamitas.  And  so  3HDB,  delictum,  and  also  poena.  This 
gives  us  a  clue  to  the  Hiph.  of  the  verb,  N'jn  ;  it  may  mean 
either  to  cause  to  sin,  or  to  subject  to  punishment,  i.  e.,  to  the 
consequences  of  sin,  having  the  same  twofold  sense  as  the  noun. 
The  mouth  that  speaks  much  and  at  random,  and  utters  false 
vows,  is  of  course  the  cause  of  the  punishment  that  follows. 
The  sinning  is  described  in  vs.  1 — 4;  the  consequences  in  v.  5  ; 
for  this  does  not  describe  a  neiv  sin,  but  adverts  to  those  already 
described. — *iba  is  the,  animal  man  as  the  seat  of  feeling,  the 
body  which  suffers  penal  consequences  in  the  present  world; 
comp.  Job  14:22,  which  gives  the  exact  idea  of  the  word  in  such 
a  connection.  —  ^so^n,  the  messenger,  i.  c,  the  person  commis- 
sioned to  explain  the  law  of  God,  and  propound  it  to  the  people, 
i.  e.,  God's  ambassador.  In  the  present  case,  the  priest  of  course 
is  meant,  before  whom  confession  of  sin  is  to  be  made.  The 
same  sense  of  the  word  in  Mai.  2  :  7.  But  in  neither  cast- 
should  we  translate  by  priest.  How  the  priest  was  concerned 
with  vows,  may  be  seen  in  Lev.  27  :  2  seq.  —  ^3  here  merely 
introduces  direct  speech,  like  on  in  Greek.  —  hWd  well  char- 
acterizes the  sin  in  question  here,  for  the  root  means  :  to  commit 
a  fault  through  error  or  imprudence.  Hitzig  translates : 
sonnenheit,  i.  e.,  an  act  of  inconsideration  ;  altogether  ad 
for  hasty  vowing  is  still  in  the  view  of  the  writer.     We  cannot 


214  LCCLESIASTLS    V.  6. 

liit  the  mark  quite  so  well  in  English.  The  design  of  the  whole 
clause  is  not  to  prohibit  confession  before  the  priest,  after  a  fault 
has  been  committed,  but  to  teach  that  a  man  should  avoid  the 
necessity  of  making  a  confession,  by  avoiding  the  sin  which  will 
demand  one.  —  hx  before  the  first  two  clauses  is  the  negative 
before  a  hortatory  verb  =  the  Greek  /xy,  while  xb  is  positive  and 
=  the  Greek  ov.  —  »*n,  it  was,  viz.,  the  thing  done  was.  —  ttsb, 
for  what?  why?  It  is  the  intensive  interrogative  of  one  dissuad- 
ing or  rebuking. — rfc'p  (—  with  a  pause-accent),  b^G3  hip  in 
v.  2.  It  means  words  uttered  by  or  with  the  voice,  or  what  the 
voice  declares,  and  thus  it  is  of  a  generic  sense.  I  have  there- 
fore rendered  it  by  words.  The  work  of  thy  hands,  means  any 
active  employment  or  business  in  which  a  man  is  engaged.  His 
undertakings  may  be  frustrated  or  destroyed  in  a  great  variety 
of  ways,  by  sickness,  by  untimely  accidents,  or  by  misfortune 
(as  we  say)  of  any  kind.  Such  is  the  threatened  punishment, 
which,  like  the  threats  in  the  Pent.,  and  nearly  throughout  the 
Old  Test.,  has  a  reference  primarily,  to  chastisements  in  the 
present  world.  It  is  rather  by  inference,  than  by  direct  and 
plain  words,  that  a  state  of  future  punishment  is  disclosed  in  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures. 

(6)  For  in  a  multitude  of  dreams  there  are  indeed  vanities;  and  so  [in] 
many  words  :  but  fear  thou  God. 

This  verse  is  a  general  summary  of  vs.  1 — 5,  making  a  con- 
clusion of  the  paragraph.  One  must  refrain  from  idle  prattling 
in  prayer,  and  from  false  vows ;  because,  like  dreams,  they  come 
to  nothing,  or  are  of  no  avail.  The  ^3  at  the  outset  is  causal, 
since  a  reason  is  given  for  refraining'  from  the  things  before 
specified.  The  1  before  t^ban  is  intensive,  §  152,  B.  2.  The  si 
before  =*~an  means  and  so,  because  comparison  is  made  by  it, 
S  152,  B.  3.  The  a  in  ana  is  by  implication  carried  forward  to 
Brno?,  as  translated  above  —  -rs,  before  the  last  clause,  is  dis- 
junctive and  adversative  =  but}  see  Lex.  v?,  No.  6. — Fear  thou 


ECCLESIASTES    V.  7.  213 

the  God  (lit.),  where  the  article  marks  the  only  living  and  true 
God,  tov  Stov.  The  word  nirn  never  occurs  in  this  book.  At 
the  period  when  this  book  was  written,  the  ovofxa  a<f>uivfjr6v  began 
to  be  disused ;  and  it  is  everywhere  dropped  in  the  version  of 
the  Seventy,  who  always  read  (as  the  Jews  now  do)  laSsj  in  the 
room  of  iTJrH .  Sentiment :  '  Many  words,  like  many  dreams, 
come  to  nothing ;  fear  God,  so  as  neither  to  speak  lightly  or 
vow  falsely.' 

§  9.   Supplementary  Reflections  on  various  Topics,  which  lead  to 
the  same  general  Result  as  before. 

Chap.  V.  7—10. 

[The  topic  of  oppression,  made  so  prominent  in  3  :  16;  4  :  1,  is  here 
brought  again  to  view,  and  some  mitigation  of  the  evil  is  suggested.  The 
Most  High  will  watch  and  oversee  rulers,  vs.  7,  8.  The  covetous  can  enjoy 
no  real  good  ;  they  can  only  look  at  their  wealth.  The  industrious  laborer 
has  much  the  advantage  over  them.  Wealth  often  injures  its  possessors,  and 
perishes  by  adverse  occurrences,  so  that  it  does  not  continue  even  for  one's 
own  children.  At  the  most,  the  rich  can  carry  away  nothing  with  them  at 
their  death ;  and  while  they  were  living,  much  vexation  ensued  from  the 
acquisition  of  wealth  and  the  safe  guarding  of  it ;  vs.  9 — 16.  To  enjoy  the 
fruits  of  labor  as  they  are  gathered,  therefore,  is  fit  and  proper,  and  this 
must  be  regarded  as  the  gift  of  God  ;  for  men  could  not,  of  themselves, 
attain  even  to  so  much.  A  man  who  enjoys  this,  will  in  a  good  measure 
forget  his  sorrows,  while  God  makes  all  things  respond  to  the  joys  of  his 
heart ;  vs.  17 — 19.] 

(7)  If  thou  shalt  sec  oppression  of  the  poor,  and  robbery  of  judgment  and 
justice  in  the  province,  be  not  astonished  concerning  such  a  matter,  for 
there  is  one  high  above  him  who  is  elevated,  a  watchful  observer ;  yea,  there 
are  those  high  above  them. 

And  robbery  of  judgment  and  justice,  pns  is  in  the  Gen.,  as 
well  as  the  preceding  noun,  and  both  stand  related  to  9T1.  Op- 
pressive magistrates  often  refuse  trial  of  the  causes  of  the  poor, 
from  motives  of  haughtiness  or  self  interest;  and  when  they  do 


21G  ECCLESIASTES    V.  7. 

try  them,  they  rob  them  of  their  just  rights  by  a  wrong  decision. 
In  the  province,  i.  e.,  in  the  particular  province  to  which  the 
person  seeing  belongs:  see  on  2  :  8,  and  comp.  Est.  1  :  1.  The 
Hebrew  kingdom  was  divided  into  provinces  for  the  sake  of 
collecting  imposts  and  revenues.  —  tt^rn,  astounded,  here  reg. 
with  n  Mappiq,  i.  e.,  vocal  as  a  consonant,  at  the  end,  and  there- 
fore a  regular  guttural  verb.  —  ysrttl,  the  matter,  as  several  times 
before.  The  art.  is  prefixed,  because  it  refers  to  the  particular 
matter  just  mentioned.  —  Inbkk,  elevated,  high.  —  bSE,  lit.  on  the 
part  of,  over,  i.  e.,  above;  see  iflJ,  B.  in  Lex.  The  second  snha 
designates  the  oppressive  magistrate  who  is  elevated  to  office ; 
the  first  i-pa  designates  his  superior  in  office,  i.  e.,  one  above  him 
in  point  of  rank.  This  superior  magistrate  is  a  ibis,  one  who 
watches  over  any  things  or  persons,  and  observes  all  actions  in 
order  to  take  cognizance  of  them.  The  implication  seems  to  be, 
that  in  such  a  case  he  will  call  to  an  account  the  oppressor. 
But  if  not,  then,  as  an  ultimate  resort,  there  are  B'TOJ,  lit.  elevated 
ones  over  them  both.  I  take  the  last  word,  in  the  plural  form 
here,  to  relate  to  God,  the  Most  High,  the  plur.  being  intensive 
(§106, 2,5.),  and  so  like  to  other  plural  participles  and  adjectives 
applied  to  the  Supreme  Being;  e.  g.,  ts^1J3,  Hos.  12  :  1  ;  Prov. 
9  :  10;  30  :  3;  fir»WTa,  Ecc.  12  :  1  ;  ■psrfcs  (Chald.  plur.),  Dan. 
7  :  18,  22,  25,  27.  The  last  clause  of  the  verse  before  us  con- 
tains a  reason  why  one  should  not  be  astonished,  since  it  is  intro- 
duced by  is.  Sentiment:  'When  inferior  magistrates  are 
oppressive,  and  in  the  habit  of  robbing  and  plundering  the  poor, 
do  not  regard  this  as  a  perplexing,  inexplicable,  and  hopeless 
matter.  An  appeal  lies  to  a  higher  court  (see  Acts  25  :  11);  but 
if  the  matter  still  goes  on  adversely  there,  then  remember  for 
your  comfort  that  there  is  One  superior  to  all,  who  will  bring  all 
into  judgment.' 

Hitzig  makes  three  orders  of  magistrates,  all  concurring  in,  or 

conniving  at  the  Bame  injustice  and  oppression.     But  how  would 

fledge  of  this  Lessen  the  astonishment  of  the  beholder? 


ECCLESIASTES     V.   8.  217 

Oppression  and  injustice  from  any  judge  of  causes  is  alwayc  a 

matter  of  astonishment  to  the  good  and  upright;  and  if  so,  a 
regular  series  of  them,  from  the  lowest  to  the  highest  magistrate, 
would  be  still  more  so.  Coheleth  advises  the  person  astonished 
to  consider  the  matter  in  its  ultimate  results.  Apparent  incon- 
sistencies in  the  government  of  Providence  will  then  be  much 
diminished,  if  they  do  not  entirely  disappear.  With  Hitzig's 
exegesis  one  cannot  well  rest  satisfied,  because  in  3  :  1G,  17,  the 
same  complaint  is  made  as  here,  and  the  answer  to  it  is,  that  God 
has  appointed  a  time  for  judging  all.  This  is  too  plain  to  be 
misunderstood  ;  and  this  of  course  makes  plain  the  verse  under 
discussion,  which  is  of  a  parallel  nature.  It  is  difficult  to  see 
how  so  sharp-sighted  a  critic  as  Hitzig  could  overlook  this 
obvious  auxiliary  in  interpreting  the  verse  before  us. 

(8)  Moreover,  an  advantage  of  a  land  in  all  this,  is  a  king  to  a  cultivated 
field. 

A  text  which  has  occasioned  no  little  difficulty  and  perplexity 
among  critics.  Our  first  object  is  to  obtain  a  right  view  of  the 
grammatical  sense.  The  proposition  is  a  general  one ;  for  he 
says  not  the  country  or  the  land,  but  simply  yw,  a  land,  any 
land.  The  Kethibh  should  of  course  be  pointed  thus:  N^n  bra, 
i.  e.,  in  all  this.  The  pointing  in  conformity  with  the  Qeri  would 
be  thus :  wn  Vsa.  We  must,  then,  translate  the  latter  as  follows : 
The  advantage  of  a  land  —  in  everything  is  it.  But  first,  this 
is  not  only  in  itself  an  extravagant  assertion,  but  irrelative  and 
incongruous  with  respect  to  the  context,  which  affords  no  reason 
for  saying  this.  Next,  the  position  of  6Wil  is  very  strange,  on 
the  supposition  that  the  Qeri  is  the  right  reading ;  for  then  son 
is  a  copula,  and  should  be  placed  immediately  after  the  subject, 
and  not,  as  here,  after  both  subject  and  predicate.  Besides,  a 
copula  in  this  case  is  unnecessary,  §  141,  since  no  emphasis  is 
demanded.  The  Kethibh,  therefore, viz.,  ton-bra,  is  undoubtedly 
the  true  reading.     Compare  PXT-bra  in  ls^  9  :  11,  20  j    10  :  4, 

19*' 


218  ECCLESIASTES    V.  8. 

for  this  latter  expression  can  mean  only:  in  all  this ;  and  "bzz 
N"n  Is  virtually  the  same,  for  this  means:  in  all  of  that  thing 
(the  fern,  represents  the  neuter).  But  what  is  that  thing*!  It 
is  what  is  described  in  the  preceding  verse,  viz.,  the  need  of 
protection  from  the  highest  ruler,  the  king,  against  oppression. 
An  advantage  to  a  land  is  it,  to  have  a  king  endowed  with  power 
and  will  to  interfere  and  protect.  This  cannot  be  a  king  who 
through  oppression  lays  waste  a  land,  by  causing  its  poor  labor- 
ing men  under  his  yoke  to  despair  of  obtaining  anything  for 
themselves ;  but  it  must  be  a  king  to  a  cultivated  Jield-land;  a 
king,  therefore,  who  renders  justice  to  the  poor,  and  encourages 
the  laborer  to  continue  his  toils,  instead  of  despoiling  him.  That 
TXSa  rfitob  means  a  cultivated  field,  or  champaign,  is  rendered 
clear  by  Ezek.  36  :  9,  34;  Deut.  21:4;  and  so  the  Sept.  trans- 
late. The  word  tTiia  has  no  article,  because  ^ns  has  none,  and 
both  mean  substantially  the  same  thing.  The  proposition,  there- 
fore, is  general  and  indefinite.  Sentiment :  '  To  any  land 
exposed  to  oppression  and  injustice,  it  is  an  advantage  to  have  a 
king  who  reigns,  not  over  a  country  made  desolate  by  oppres- 
sion, but  over  a  cultivated  field-land.  Justice  will  then  be  so 
administered,  that  the  country  will  pour  forth  an  abundance  by 
reason  of  the  poor  laborer's  toil  in  cultivating  it ;  and  this  is 
an  advantage.'     See  Prov.  14  :  28. 

I  merely  mention  some  of  the  renderings  of  the  last  clause 
here.  Rosenm. :  rex  est  agro  addictus.  Herzfeld  :  the  king  is 
subject  to  the  field.  Ewald  :  a  king  is  set  over  the  country. 
Knobel:  a  king  honored  by  the  land.  Heiligstedt:  a  king  is 
,un  iii-  for  the  field.  Eng.  version:  a  king  is  served  by  the  field. 
Nol  one  of  all  these  accords  with  the  grammatical  meaning  of 
the  Hebrew.  Rosenm.  makes  the  king  only  a  lover  of  agricul- 
ture ;  Hertz.,the  king  to  be  a  servant  of  the  field;  Ewald,  a  king 
set  ever  the  field  (a  meaning  that  1553  never  has)  ;  Knob.,  a 
king  honored,  etc.,  while  the  proper  word  inv  this  is  ta2r^ ; 
Heiligst.  (like   Ewald),  a  king  terrae  praefcctus;  the  Eng.  ver- 


ECCLESIASTES    V.  8.  219 

sion,  a  king  served  by  the  field,  which  is  nearer  than  any  of  the 

others  to  the  Hebrew,  but  still  gives  an  irrelevant  Bense.  T<> 
what  direct  purpose  is  all  this,  or  rather,  are  all  these  views? 
while  that  which  i.-,  given  above  commends  itself  by  its  concin- 
nity  with  the  context.  Rulers  may  he  oppressive  ;  they  often 
and  usually  are  so;  but  it  is  an  advantage  to  any  land,  where  the, 
poor  are  exposed  to  oppression,  to  have  a  king  who  will  not 
suffer  any  to  lay  waste  his  domain  by  oppressing,  but  will  cause 
it  to  be  cultivated  by  dealing  justly  with  all. 

The  verse  is  probably  a  side-blow  at  some  tyrant  of  the  day, 
whose  measures  had  made  the  country  a  comparative  desolation. 
A  striking  illustration  of  the  effect  of  such  a  government  on  the 
country  is  found  by  casting  our  eye  over  Palestine  and  Asia 
Minor ;  the  latter  of  which  once  had  an  immense  population,  but 
now  has  not  one  twentieth  part  of  the  numbers  which  it  could 
support.  Scarcely  any  region  of  the  earth  is  capable  of  support- 
ing more  inhabitants  on  its  soil.  Yet  Turkish  despotism  has 
made  it  a  waste.  The  Sultans  have  never  aimed  to  be  kings 
over  cultivated  fields,  and  have  been  something  very  different 
from  a  "pin?  to  the  land.  Coheleth  seems  to  have  lived  under 
some  prince  of  such  a  character;  and  while  he  complains  of 
oppression,  and  reminds  the  nhj ,  or  king,  that  he  should  look  to 
his  under-officers,  he  reminds  him  also  of  his  responsibility  to  a 
higher  King,  and  that  he  would  be  a  blessing  to  his  realm,  if  by 
his  justice  and  equity  he  would  convert  the  whole  country  into  a 
cultivated  field.  It  is  comforting  to  the  oppressed  when  Buch 
admonition  is  faithfully  given. 

These  views  in  respect  to  avaricious  and  rapacious  magistrates 
naturally  led  the  mind  of  the  writer  to  the  consideration,  once 
more,  of  riches,  and  of  the  strife  to  acquire  them.  His  views  in 
the  sequel  are  more  general,  and  are  not  confined  to  magistrates, 
although  they  are  doubtless  included.  The  subject  lay  heavily 
upon  his  mind.  In  2  :  7 — 9  he  has  spoken  plainly  respecting 
regal  wealth.     In  4  :  8  he  returns  again  to  the  subject,  and  takes 


220  ECCLESIASTES    V.  9,  10. 

a  more  general  view.  But  now,  when  occasion  again  prompts, 
he  comes  out  more  fully  still,  and  contemplates  the  subject  from 
various  points  of  view. 

(9)  He  who  loveth  silver  shall  not  be  satisfied  with  silver ;  and  whoever 
loveth  wealth  shall  not  [be  satisfied]  with  revenue ;  this  too  is  vanity. 

Silver  was  the  most  common  coin,  and  therefore  is  employed 
here  as  the  representative  of  all  wealth.  The  second  qcs  is  in 
the  Ace,  after  a  verb  of  filling,  §  135,  3,  b.-~fian$,  with  the 
article,  as  the  vowel  under  2  shows ;  for  pointing,  see  Lex.  H ; 
the  word  being  abstract,  it  naturally  takes  the  article  in  Hebrew, 
§  107,  n.  1,  c.  For  3,  after  nnit,see  in  Lex.  s.v.  That  ssto?  is 
implied  after  xb  is  quite  plain ;  and  I  have  translated  accordingly. 
IWOPI  is  Ace.  after  this  verb  implied.  Here  a  new  shape  is 
given  to  the  vanity  in  question.  The  eager  pursuit  of  wealth 
enkindles  desires  that  never  can  be  quenched  or  allayed.  Of 
course  it  is  truly  a  tormenting  briri . 

(10)  By  the  increase  of  goods,  they  who  consume  them  are  increased; 
and  what  advantage  is  there  to  their  owner,  except  the  looking  on  with  his 
eyes  ? 

rniun,  sing,  generic,  while  our  exactly  corresponding  English 
word  (goods)  is  employed  only  in  the  plural,  in  the  sense  here 
required.  I  have  translated  in  accordance  with  our  idiom.  The 
article  is  put  here  before  a  word  designating  a  class  of  things, 
§  107,  n.  1,  b.  The  sufF.  to  the  Part.  (H-)  is  sing,  in  order  to 
correspond  with  the  noun  to  which  it  relates.  The  same  with 
the  suff.  in  r\*\v2h,  from  b?3 —  EX  is>,  see  in  Lex.  —  n*an  has 
vowels  belonging  to  the  Qeri  nWl.  Which  form  is  preferable, 
it  would  be  difficult  to  decide,  since  both  are  good.  Both  of 
these  forms  are  nouns  of  the  Inf.  formation  ;  while  ni""i,  at.  the 
beginning  of  the  verse  is  Inf.  nominascens.  That  "jiliS?  does 
DOl  here  mean  dexterity  (as  in  2  :  21),  is  plain  from  the  context, 
which  requires  such  a  meaning  as  I  have  given  in  the  version 


ECCLESIASTES    V.   11,12.  221 

above.     Great  wealth  must    needs   be  furnished  with  a  large 

retinue,  to  guard  it  and  to  add  to  it;  comp.  dob  1  :  3.  These 
must  consume  mueh ;  so  that  the  owner  can  do  no  more  than 
gratify  his  eyes  for  a  time,  by  looking  at  his  treasures.  —  TW, 
Ms  eyes,  but  i  sing,  refers  to  the  preceding  apparently  plur. 
noun.  But  still,  as  the  plur.  of  this  noun  (like  d~!"6x)  has 
always  a  sing,  meaning  (see  Lex.),  the  concord  ad  senium  is 
complete,  §  107,  2,  b. 

(11)  Sweet  is  the  sleep  of  the  laborer,  whether  he  cat  little  or  much  ;  but 
the  abundance  of  the  rich  man  docs  uot  permit  him  to  sleep. 

Here  is  another  defect  in  riches.  The  poor  laborer  has  quiet 
sleep,  and  is  so  hardy  that  whether  he  has  more  or  less  food  it 
does  not  disquiet  him.  The  rich  are  kept  awake  through  fear 
of  losing  their  riches  ;  or  perhaps  the  writer  alludes  to  the 
satiety  of  the  rich  in  their  food,  which  disturbs  their  sleep. 
Observe  that  ins* ,  Part,  (laborer)  has  a  different  meaning  from 
"HS,  servant.  —  SSlBPj  with  the  art.,  it  being  abstract.  This  word 
is  in  the  abs.  state,  and  of  course  the  following  noun  is  in  the 
Dat.  of  appurtenance,  having  the  force  or  meaning  of  a  Gen. 
§  113,  2.  The  article  (its  vowel  is  under  b)  is  put  before  a 
whole  class.  —  rrw,  Part.  Hiph.  of  the  form  B.  or  No.  II.  (Lex.), 
from  PVI5,  concessit.  By  a  little  change  in  the  version  we  can 
imitate  the  Heb.  "ft  that  follows  ;  e.  g.,  does  not  afford  leave  or  per- 
mission to  him,  etc.  —  ",i"i:^b,  Inf.  with  b  of  ■}?£;  for  the  first 
vowel,  see  §  24,  1  ffc  for  "h). 

(12)  There  is  a  grievous  evil  which  I  have  seen  under  the  sun,  riches 
kept  to  the  owner's  harm. 

Hitherto  the  negative 'side  of  the  evil  has  been  presented  to 
view.  Now  comes  the  positive.  There  is  a  grievous  evil,  etc, 
excites  attention  in  the  reader  to  a  new  attitude  of  the  thing 
considered.  —  nbin ,  fem.  Part,  of  fibn  ,  used  adjectively.  Beibre 
irnsn  the   pron.  *!!»»  is  implied,  §  121,  o.  —  i"'r^  with  Bing. 

19* 


222  ECCLESIASTES    V.  13,14. 

meaning  as  before.  —  l"*"1?'?^  w^tn  sm»*  su^-  accordingly.  The 
lit.  Heb.  here  runs  thus :  for  its  owner,  to  his  harm.  I  have 
abbreviated  the  expression  in  my  version.  The  proposition 
made  by  this  verse  he  now  goes  on  to  illustrate  by  particulars. 

(13)  And  those  riches  perish  by  luckless  undertakings ;  and  he  has  begot- 
ten a  son,  and  there  is  nothing  in  his  hand. 

V~\  **:?,  lit.  an  affair  of  evil,  which  is  not  limited  to  bad  bar- 
gains only,  but  extends  to  any  unfortunate  occurrences  in  busi- 
ness which  call  for  a  sacrifice  of  property.  He  hath  begotten  a 
son,  viz.,  while  he  was  rich.  And  there  is  nothing  in  his  hand. 
Whose  hand?  Some  say,  the  son's;  others,  the  father's.  I 
agree  with  the  latter ;  because  the  writer  seems  desirous  to  con- 
vey the  idea  that,  having  begotten  a  son,  he  now  has  nothing  to 
bestow  upon  him.  This  is  a  sore  evil  to  paternal  feeling.  —  ,p« , 
const,  form,  is  connected  with  irxjiarai.  This  last  word  is  com- 
pounded of  trc^  rra  =  quid  quid.  The  negative  "px  or  &&  before 
it,  makes  it  mean  nothing. 

(14)  As  he  came  forth  from  the  womb  of  his  mother,  naked  shall  he  again 
depart  as  he  came,  and  nothing  shall  he  receive  by  his  toil,  which  he  may 
carry  away  in  his  hand. 

He  shall  go  out  of  the  world  as  he  came  into  it ;  he  brought 
nothing  into  it,  he  shall  carry  nothing  out  of  it.  —  T^^,  as 
pointed,  is  in  Iiiph.  Imperf.,  which  means,  among  other  things, 
to  take  with  one,  to  carry  away  with  one.  The  Imperf.  Hiph.  is 
from  iy*.  Hitzig  insists  on  pointing  the  word  T&  (Kal. 
Imperf.),  and  then  translating  thus:  his  toil,  which  goes  through 
his  hand;  i.  e.,  either  which  his  hand  performs,  or  which  escapes 
through  his  hands.  But  I  know  of  no  case  in  Hebrew  where 
Btich  ;t  manner  of  expression  occurs.  Persons  go,  or  cause  to  go, 
not  things.  Nor  can  I  see  any  objection  against  the  meaning 
given  above,  which  is  of  serious  import.  Minutiae  of  manner  in 
coming  and  departing  are  not  aimed  at.     The  general  and  obvi- 


E  C  C  L  E  S  I  A  S  T  E  S    V  .   15,  16.  2  23 

oils  sense  is  given  above.     The  verb  asufj  here  signifies  again, 
see  Lex.  —  ttja  ss=  I^KS,  «s. 

(Vr>)  And  tliis  too  is  a  sore  evil,  that  altogether  as  lie  came  so  shall  he 
depart ;  and  what  advantage  is  there  to  him  who  toils  for  the  wind  ? 

This  second  sore  evil  is  not  merely  like  that  just  mentioned, 
viz.,  of  coming  into  the  world  without  anything  and  leaving  it 
without  anything,  but  in  addition  to  this  part  of  troubles  comes 
what  is  mentioned  in  the  next  verse.  Both  vs.  15  and  1G  de- 
scribe the  second  sore  evil,  as  &a  between  them  shows.  —  rfl9S-^3, 
altogether  as,  like  as,  !"i532>  (like  or)  is  literally  a  noun,  meaning 
conjunction  or  communion,  root  d"2S .  As  a  prep.,  it  always  takes 
this  const,  form.  In  aaa,  the  ""ittJWt  (tti)  is  superfluous  for  us. 
Lit.  the  three  words  mean  altogether  like  that.  —  tfc  often  means 
depart,  as  here.      To  toil  for  the  wind,  is  to  toil  to  no  purpose. 

(16)  Also  he  consumes  all  his  days  in  gloom,  and  is  much  irritated,  and 
his  infirmities  are  matter  of  indignation. 

bzth  (to  eat)  has  often  a  tropical  sense,  as  to  devour,  consume, 
etc.  So  here.  The  literal  meaning  would  only  say,  that  he, 
during  all  his  days,  takes  his  meals  in  a  gloomy  state  of  mind ; 
but  the  tropical  meaning  gives  us  the  idea,  that  all  his  time  is 
spent  in  gloom.  So  darkness  is  not  literal  here,  but  z=  gloom, 
sadness.  The  rest  of  the  verse  is  difficult,  and  has  given  rise  to 
a  variety  of  interpretations.  Taking  the  text  as  it  stands,  crs 
is  a  neut.  intrans.  verb,  and  may  be  rendered  passively,  as  above. 
t)Spl  i^?rp.,  and  his  infirmity  is  even  indignation,  is  the  literal 
version.  The  first  part  of  the  verse  discloses  his  gloomy  state 
of  mind  ;  the  second,  his  bodily  infirmities  and  their  consequence, 
viz.,  excitement,  indignation.  I  take  l  before  the  last  word  to  be 
a  note  of  intensity,  §  152,  B.  2.  Sentiment:  '  His  infirmities 
excite  him  to  anger  or  strong  indignation  ;  i.  e.,  he  is  impatient, 
and  frets  while  they  are  upon  him.'  I  have  rendered  'hbn  by 
the  plur.  (infirmities),  because  it  is  an   abstract   noun   (of  the 


224  ECCLESIASTES    V.  10. 

Inf.  form,  §  84,  V.),  and  denotes  estate  or  condition  of  infirmity; 
which  same  thing  is  designated  more  usually  with  us  by  the 
plural,  for  the  sing,  has  respect  commonly  to  some  specific 
malady.  As  to  the  1  before  the  last  noun,  in  many  cases  it  is 
put  before  a  noun  which  makes  an  accession  to  what  precedes,  in 
the  way  of  explanation,  or  of  comparison,  or  for  the  sake  of 
adding  a  stronger  or  more  explicit  word.  Thus  Zech.  14:6: 
"There  shall  be  no  light,  "pSSpl  min^,  coldness,  even  ice  [shall 
there  be "].  Here  the  latter  noun  designates  the  intensity  of 
the  cold.  To  translate  1  in  such  a  case  by  the  simple  and,  would 
make  the  sentiment  tame.  As  rendered  above,  the  words  convey 
the  same  idea  for  substance,  as  very  cold;  for  when  ice  is  formed 
in  Palestine,  the  sensation  of  cold  is  extreme.  As  the  words 
are  now  we  have  a  fine  poetic  substitute  for  the  prosaic  "IN"? , 
very  much.  And  in  such  a  light  I  regard  our  text.  I  take  the 
writer  to  be  showing  the  usual  concomitants,  or  rather  the  conse- 
quences, of  wealth  which  procures  the  means  of  living  luxuri- 
ously. The  temptation  to  such  living  is  very  great,  and  in  its 
train  it  usually  brings  the  evils  here  mentioned,  viz., gloom  of 
mind,  irritability,  prolonged  infirmity,  with  impatient  and  angry 
fretting  under  it.  All  tins  is  indeed  what  the  writer  calls  it  — 
a  sore  evil. 

In  this  way  of  interpretation,  no  change  of  the  text  is  needed. 
Ilitzig  thinks  the  text  to  be  so  corrupt,  that  he  ventures  to  re- 
fashion  it  thus  :  S)S]31  "nbnri  rt?-nn  b§31.  He  then  makes  ds'd  the 
Ace  after  bran  implied,  which  must  be  rendered :  devours  vio- 
lence; and  this  he  explains  or  illustrates  by  a  reference  to  irnd 
bttn,  //''  drinks  in  violence  (Prov.  26  :  6),  and  by  the  Latin 
aegritudinem  devorare.  He  might  have  added  to  the  last : 
devorare  mplestiam —  inepUas  —  libros — pecuniam,  etc.  But 
the  Latin  verb  means  both  to  devour,  to  eat  up,  and  also  to  sup- 
to  keep  under.  But  the  expression  in  Proverbs  means 
ret  eiving  or  suffering  much  violence  =  drinking  a  large  draught 
<>:'  it.     Ii  is  pOi  bible  that  Or?  bsKi  maybe  construed  in  like  way; 


ECCLESIASTES    V.   1  2-> 

but  it  is  hardly  probable.  There  is  nothing  like  it  elsewhere. 
Devouring  or  destroying  is  the  prominent  tropical  meaning  of  brx , 
and  this  would  make  no  sense  in  the  passage  before  us.  Ilitzig 
gives  the  verb  the  sense  of  swallow  down;  but  that  belongs 
rather  to  ftniZJ.  No  analogon,  then,  can  be  found  in  Hebrew  to 
support  his  view.  As  to  the  verb  ds'3,  it  is  by  no  means  unfre- 
quent ;  and  it  is  employed  here  in  7  :  9.  Ilitzig  says  that  the 
text  as  it  stands  must  refer  the  sufF.  in  "rbn  to  eovetousness  as 
implied  in  the  preceding  context.  But  this  would  be  singular, 
indeed,  to  personify  that  covetousness,  and  then  apply  to  it  the 
word  infirmity.  To  us,  sick  covetousness  sounds  Btrangely.  What 
need  of  this?  The  same  person  who  consumes  his  time  in  gloom, 
who  is  irritated,  i.  e.,  the  greedy  and  covetous  man,  is  the  person 
referred  to  by  the  suff.  in  "pbn .  Why  perplex  that  which  gives 
a  good  sense  as  it  stands  ?  Indeed,  the  changes  in  the  text  pro- 
posed by  Hitzig  are  too  numerous  to  be  credible ;  and  clearly 
they  are  unnecessary.  Heiligstedt  pursues  the  same  course, 
without  either  explaining  or  defending  the  necessity  of  it. 
Surely,  it  is  not  a  safe  course  to  pursue,  when  we  not  only  trans- 
form the  text,  but  also  assign  to  it  a  meaning  new  and  strange. 
All  this  is  easier,  indeed,  than  to  enucleate  the  somewhat  obscure 
declaration  of  Coheleth.  simply  in  the  way  of  grammatico-critical 
investigation.  But  after  all,  labor  laid  out  on  artificial  exegesis 
is  an  an  £»,  to  say  the  least  of  it.  Seldom,  indeed,  does  Ilitzig 
take  such  liberties;  and  here  we  may  well  dispense  with  them. 

We  come,  now,  after  this  repeated  survey  of  oppression  and 
avarice,  by  placing  them  in  some  new  positions,  to  the  same 
general  conclusion  as  before : 

(17)  Lo!  what  have  I  seen  which  is  good,  what  comely ;  to  cat  and  to 
drink,  and  to  enjoy  good  for  all  one's  toil  which  he  hath  endured  under  til  i 
sun  during  the  number  of  the  days  of  his  life  which  God  hath  given  him  ; 
for  this  is  his  portion. 

":x  may  be  regarded  as  emphatic  here  — '  I.  who  have  >o  long 


226  ECCLESIASTES    V.   18. 

reflected  on  this  matter,  have  come  to  this  conclusion.'  It  is 
usually  (hut  not  always)  emphatic  when  expressed  as  the  subject 
of  a  verb,  §  134,  3,  n.  2.  Before  3ia  the  pron.  -urx  seems  to 
be  implied,  with  the  meaning  which  is;  for  the  same  is  inserted 
before  FiB*1,  which  is  in  the  same  predicament.  This  latter  word 
means  comely,  decorous,  etc. ;  i.  e.,  enjoying  the  fruit  of  one's  toil 
is  not  only  a  pleasure,  but  one  which  is  becoming  and  proper. 
The  b  before  the  three  Infinitives  =zut,  that;  and  so  we  may  trans- 
late: that  one  should  eat,  etc.  Our  simple  to  before  the  Inf. 
answers  the  same  purpose  as  to  meaning.  See  good;  see  remarks 
on  2  :  1.  —  3,  on  account  of,  in  the  sense  of  for;  see  Lex.  a  B. 
0.  —  b^zv^q,  lit.  which  he  toils.  We  can  say  toil  a  toil,  but  we 
do  not.  AVe  substitute  endure  or  undergo  in  lieu  of  employing 
the  correlative  verb.  —  ISO"?  const,  and  in  the  Ace.  of  time.  It 
is  only  when  it  is  in  the  Gen.  after  a  noun,  that  it  means  few. 
Which  God  hath  given  him,  I  must  refer  to  the  allotted  time  of 
man,  and  not  (with  Hitzig)  to  the  enjoyments  before  named. 
For  this  is  his  portion  ;  i.  e.,it  is  good  to  eat,  etc.,  because  this  is 
the  portion,  and  our  only  one,  allotted  to  us  by  God,  in  order  that 
we  might  have  enjoyment.  To  the  same  conclusion  which  this 
verse  expresses,  the  writer  has  repeatedly  come  before ;  see 
2  :  24;  3  :  12,  13,  22. 

(18)  Moreover,  as  to  every  man  to  whom  God  hath  given  riches  and 
wealth,  and  hath  given  him  power  to  eat  thereof,  and  to  take  his  portion,  and 
to  rejoice  in  his  toil  —  this  is  the  gift  of  God. 

n"x-bs  is  Nom.  absolute,  suggesting  the  main  subject  of  the 
Bentence,  but  having  no  verb.  I  have  translated  accordingly. 
Riches  and  wealth,  two  synonymes,  and  therefore  the  meaning  is 
abundant  riches.  —  V-rVjn,  lit.  made  him  to  hare  control. —  *i3fip, 
of  if.  viz.,  of  ~~v.  —  H»to,  contracted  fern.  Inf.  of  RiM,  put  for 
rxr.  —  rrr;  contract  of  MtTO,  from  "r2.  —  X"H,  is,  as  often  be- 
fore lb-  means  to  Bay  that  it  is  a  good  gift,  so  far  as  it  goes. 
He  proceeds  to  assign  a  reason  for  bo  saying: 


ECCLESIASTES    V.   10.  227 

(19)  For  he  will  not  much  remember  the  days  of  his  life,  when  God  shall 
cause  [things]  to  correspond  with  the  joy  of  his  heart. 

Much  remember,  etc.,  where  the  days  of  his  life  seems  t<>  refer 
to  his  past  life,  which  had  so  often  been  checkered  with  sorrow. 
Now,  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  special  gift  of  God,  his  reflections 
on  the  sombre  past,  or  on  the  shortness  of  his  days,  will  cease  to 
be  painful  and  disturbing  to  him.  The  reason  is  more  explicitly 
stated  in  the  last  clause.  —  173*8)  Part.  Hiph.,  has  made  not  a 
little  difficulty  here ;  but  without  adequate  cause.  —  hW  is  to  re- 
spond to,  to  chime  with.  Here  the  writer  asserts  that  God  will 
cause  a  response,  viz.,  in  the  things  around  him,  to  the  tone  of 
the  man's  mind  who  is  enjoying.  The  things  are  not  named,  for 
they  are  indefinite  and  unlimited.  All  things  may  be  understood. 
In  the  version,  I  have  supplied  an  Ace.  In  IIos.  2  :  21,  22,  is  a 
passage  which  well  illustrates  this:  "I  will  answer  [ri35K,the 
same  verb  as  here]  the  heavens,  and  they  shall  answer  the  earth, 
and  the  earth  shall  answer  the  grain,  etc.,  and  that  shall  answer 
Jezreel;"  t.  e.,  everything  shall  be  ready  and  responsive  to  its 
proper  purpose.  So  in  the  verse  before  us :  '  God  will  cause 
everything  to  respond  to  the  joyful  state  of  mind  which  follows 
his  gift.  Hope  and  pleasing  anticipation  shall  prevail.'  As  to 
the  phrase  joy  of  heart,  see  it  in  Cant.  3:11;  Jer.  15  :  16  ;  Is. 
30  :  29,  comp.  Ps.  21  :  3.  In  this  way,  no  change  in  the  texl  is 
needed. 

It  is  needless  to  repeat  here  what  has  been  already  said  (on 
2  :  3,  24)  concerning  the  prudent  and  cautious  indulgence  which 
icisdom  demands.  Coheleth  is  no  Epicure.  Specially  is  he 
remote  from  Epicurism,  as  it  concerns  the  acknowledgment  of  a 
God,  and  gratitude  to  him  for  his  blessings.  Most  earthly  pleas- 
ures he  finds  at  last  to  be  altogether  empty  and  vain  ;  but  the 
enjoyment  of  the  fruits  of  one's  industry,  he  repeatedly  declares, 
is  a  good,  and  the  only  good  that  promises  much,  while  even  this 
is  short-lived  and  transitory.  But  whatever  there  is  in  it  of 
satisfaction,  this  is  God's  gift,  and  not  procured  by  ourselvi 


228  ECCLLSIASTES    VI.    1. 

deep  and  reverential  feeling  toward  God  must  have  prompted 
such  a  sentiment  in  such  a  connection.  Providence  is  not  taxed 
with  injustice,  nor  is  unbelief  in  it  excited,  on  account  of  the 
apparently  undistinguishing  distribution  of  good  and  evil  in  the 
world,  or  because  of  the  untoward  events  of  life.  All  good  comes 
from  God,  and  demands  thankful  acknowledgment.  Suffering 
and  sorrow,  when  they  come  on  all  alike,  are  mysteries  not  to  be 
explained,  but  not  things  which  give  us  any  right  to  complain. 
It  would  seem  that  the  writer  had  drunk  deep  of  the  spirit  of  the 
Book  of  Job,  and  perhaps  it  is  probable  that  he  lived  near  the 
time  when  that  book  was  written.  We  shall  see  that  he  quotes 
or  alludes  to  it  in  the  sequel. 


§  10.  Disappointments  frequent,  in  respect  to  attainable  Good / 
they  come  both  upon  the  wise  and  the  foolish,  and  no  one  can 
control  Divine  Arrangements. 

Chap.  VI.  1—12. 

[The  declarations  in  5  :  17 — 19,  respecting  our  highest  attainable  earthly 
good,  give  occasion  to  further  consideration  of  the  subject.  There  are  men 
who  lose  this  good.  Their  lot  is  an  unhappy  one.  It  would  be  better  had 
they  never  been  born.  And  even  if  one  lives  to  old  age,  he  must  at  last  die 
like  others.  All  toil  is  for  sustenance,  and  yet  the  appetite  is  never  satisfied. 
Both  the  wise  and  foolish  are  subjected  to  the  same  law  of  never-satisfied 
craving.  Experience  of  enjoyment  would  be  better  than  the  wanderings  of 
desire;  but  the  order  of  Providence  cannot  be  changed,  which  has  definitely 
fixed  and  limited  circling  events.  Who,  then,  can  point  out  any  stable  good 
for  man,  in  days  yet  future  ?} 

(1 )  There  is  an  evil  which  I  have  seen  under  the  sun,  and  heavily  does  it 
lie  upon  man. 

IW ,  lit.  greats  much,  but  connected  as  it  here  is  with  fc?  (upon), 
the  indication  is  that  it  bean  heavily  on  him,  i.  e.,  so  as  to  grieve 
or  oppress  him. — b$  often  indicates  uvon  in  the  sense  of  a  burden. 


ECCLESIASTES    VI.  2,3.  229 

a  grievance;  §  151,  3,  b.     The   transition  by  &  at    the   outset, 
marks  an  advance  to  a  new  phase  of  the  subject. 

(2)  There  is  a  man  to  whom  God  hath  given  riches,  and  wealth,  and 
splendor,  and  he  lacketh  nothing  for  his  soul  of  all  which  lie  deaireth,  and 
yet  God  hath  not  given  him  power  to  eat  thereof,  hut  a  stranger  eatcth  it; 
this  is  vanity,  yea,  a  grievous  malady  is  it. 

Riches  and  wealth,  i.  e.,  great  riches,  as  in  5  :  18.  —  *ri3S  may 
mean  either  the  splendor  connected  with  wealth,  or  the  honor  of 
elevated  rank.  The  former  seems  more  congruous  here.  —  1DM 
Part,  of  a  verb  final  Tseri,  §  49,  2,  a.  —  ittJB3  means  the  physical 
animal  man,  with  his  appetites  and  desires.  —  Vz"2,  the  a  being 
connected  with  IDn  and  naturally  following  it,  "pa  =  pari, portion, 
TVgNty?,  reg.  Hithp.  with  1  consonant  in  the  root.  —  ISfitt,  of  it, 
viz.,  of  his  wealth  which  he  has  acquired.  A  stranger  eateth  it, 
i.  e.,  his  unknown  heir ;  see  2:18.  The  case  of  the  man  here 
presented  is  different  from  that  in  5  :  12,  13  (Eng.  13,  14),  inas- 
much as  he  keeps  in  possession  of  his  property  through  life,  but 
has  no  disposition  to  enjoy  it,  while  the  man  described  in  5  :  12 
seq.,  loses  his  estate.  But  even  the  power  of  enjoyment  depends 
on  God  —  God  hath  not  given  to  him,  etc. 

(3)  If  a  man  beget  a  hundred  [children],  and  live  many  years,  and  the 
days  of  his  years  that  are  to  come  arc  multiplied,  and  his  soul  is  not  satisfied 
with  good,  and  moreover  there  is  no  hurial  to  him,  I  say :  Better  than  he  is 
an  untimely  birth. 

The  word  beget  carries  with  it  of  course  the  implication  of 
children,  which  I  have  supplied  in  the  version  ;  see  the  like  ellip- 
sis in  1  Sam.  2:5;  Jer.  15  :  9,  al.  —  --:r  fern,  with  masc.  form, 
as  nin'n  shows.  —  I1!  appears  to  be  a  verb  used  impersonally 
here  (root  Ml),  for  if  it  were  an  adjective,  the  plur.  c"2"]  would 
he  necessary  in  order  to  agree  witli  *•:*.  days.  The  Heb.  cannot 
be  closely  followed  in  the  translation,  as  to  its  order  ;  but  the 
sense  of  the  clause  is  presented  in  the  version  above.     Literally 

20 


230  ECCLESIASTES    VI.   3. 

rendered,  it  would  run  thus  :  And  if  there  be  much  which  shall  he 
the  days  of  his  years. 

Two  circumstances  of  his  misery  are  developed;  first,  his  soul 
is  not  satisfied  with  his  portion,  because  God  has  not  given  to 
him  power  to  be  satisfied  (v.  2)  ;  and  secondly,  he  dies  without 
the  honors  of  a  burial.  The  fact  that  he  was  too  covetous  to 
appropriate  his  wealth  to  his  own  enjoyment,  renders  it  probable 
that  he  makes  no  provision  for  an  honorable  or  expensive  funeral 
or  monument,  such  as  becomes  his  rank.  His  heir,  if  a  stranger 
(as  he  is  named  in  v.  2),  would  not  be  anxious  to  do  at  his  own 
expense,  what  he  had  left  unprovided  for.  We  are  not,  however, 
to  take  Ifnttp  in  the  sense  of  mere  sepulture  (for  no  man  would 
be  left  unburied,  in  the  midst  of  society  and  in  a  time  of  peace), 
but  in  that  of  sepulchre  (Gen.  35  :  20  ;  47  :  30),  or  else  in  that 
of  funeral,  i.  e.,  burial  with  customary  and  expensive  cere- 
monies. The  meaning  of  sepulchre  is  rather  preferable,  because 
this  is  an  enduring  monument  of  the  man  who  is  laid  in  it  and 
has  his  name  inscribed  on  it.  To  leave  the  dead  unburied  is  a 
disgrace  inflicted  only  by  the  most  hostile  enemy;  see  in  Is. 
14  :  18,  19.  For  disgraceful  burial  without  expense,  see  Jer. 
22  :  18,  19.  The  feelings  of  the  Hebrews  in  respect  to  the 
decorum  of  burial,  are  well  developed  in  Gen.  23  :  3 — 13.  In 
Coheleth's  view,  that  man's  lot  is  sorely  grievous,  who  is  very 
rich  and  yet  so  miserly  as  to  dispense  with  the  comforts  of  life 
for  himself,  and  who  dies  unnoticed,  and  unhonored  by  a  sep- 
ulchre befitting  his  condition.  "Better,"  he  exclaims,  "is  an 
untimely  birth,  than  such  a  person."  The  reason  of  this  decla- 
ration is  given  more  fully  in  the  sequel. 

Hitzig  finds  great  difficulty  in  this  verse,  and  thinks  it  partly 
Bpurious,  Tli.-  clause  about  burial,  he  thinks,  has  a  wrong  loca- 
te hi.  and  >li<>uld  be  put  before  ittJfiJ,  with  the  omission  of  !>ib. 
The  clause  would  then  run  thus:  "And  moreover  should  be 
buried,  and  liis  bou]  not  be  satisfied  with  good,"  etc.  From  a 
strange  hand  he  thinks  the  latter  part  of  the  verse,  as  it  now  is, 


ECCLESIASTES    VI.    1,5.  231 

must  have  come,  and  that  it  should  be  stricken  out.  lie  repre- 
sents the  words  of  Coheleth,  now  in  the  text,  as  comprising  or 
implying  (ho  sentiment,  that  if  the  circumstance  of  being  wnbwrii  ■/ 
were  omitted,  then  the  case  of  the  miser  would  be  bet  tec  than 
that  of  the  untimely  birth.  But  on  this,  as  it  seems  to  me,  In- 
lays more  stress  than  the  writer  intended.  His  renunciation  of 
comforts  through  life,  and  then  his  death  unmourned  ami  as  it 
were  unnoticed,  are  both  combined  in  the  writer's  mind,  while 
the  latter  is  only  the  climax  of  the  former.  That  the  poor  and 
friendless  should  die  unnoticed  and  unhonored,  would  be  nothing 
strange  in  such  a  world  as  this;  but  when  the  honors  of  a  tomb 
or  a  funeral  are  withheld  from  a  rich  man,  his  case  uhim  ln- 
grievous  in  the  view  of  the  public,  and  one  which  shocks  the 
common  sensibility.  Other  commentators  have  not  found,  ami 
none  need  to  find,  such  difficulties  as  Ilitzig;  and  his  allegations 
seem  hardly  to  justify  a  charge  of  surreptitious  addition  to  the 
text,  or  a  violent  dislocation  of  it. 

(4)  For  it  cometh  in  nothingness,  and  it  departeth  in  darkness,  and  in 
darkness  is  its  name  concealed. 

In  nothingness,  barna,  i.  e.,  it  has  no  real  life,  no  proper  exist- 
ence as  a  human  being,  or  none  to  any  purpose.  In  darkness  it 
departeth,  i.  e.,  it  perishes  unseen,  before  it  sees  the  light.  It 
does  not  even  obtain  a  name  =  a  remembrance.  There  is  noth- 
ing to  call  or  remember  it  by.  For  the  article  before  bari  as 
abstract,  see  §  107,  3,  n.  3,  c;  before  Tjdn  the  article  stands  ;il  <>, 
because  it  is  either  a  kind  of  abstract,  or  the  name  of  a  special 
substance  so  considered,  ib.  b. 

(5)  Moreover,  it  hath  not  seen  the  sun,  nor  had  any  knowledge ;  quiet 
hath  this  rather  than  that. 

Ilitzig  translates :  It  hath  not  seen  and  hath  not  known  the  sun. 
But  I  apprehend  that  this  version  falls  short  of  the  writer's 

meaning.     It  hath  not  seen  the  sun,  alludes  to  its  death  before  its 


\ 


232  ECCLESIASTES    VI.   6. 

birth;  while  $*ni  vb)  goes  further,  and  declares  that  it  has  not 
had  any  kind  of  knowledge.  This  verb  not  unfrequently  is  used 
as  intransitive,  i.  e.,  without  an  object  after  it,  and  so  means  to 
jiossess  cognition  or  knowledge.  This  surely  makes  the  text 
more  significant.  Quiet  has  this,  viz.,  this  untimely  birth,  which 
so  prematurely  perishes,  rather  than  that,  viz.,  the  miserly  man 
without  a  sepulchre.  Not  more  quiet  after  both  are  dead, 
for  then  the  case  is  the  same  with  both;  but  quiet  on  the 
whole  ;  quiet  considered  in  opposition  to  the  turmoil  and  vexa- 
tion of  the  rich  man.  Quiet  is  a  thing  which  stands  high  on 
the  list  of  oriental  enjoyments,  and  is  regarded  as  a  matter  of 
eager  desire.  The  rest  in  heaven,  and  in  the  land  of  Canaan, 
borrows  a  part  of  its  intense  significancy  from  this  circumstance. 

( 6 )  And  even  if  he  live  a  thousand  years  twice  told,  and  enjoy  no  good  — 
do  not  all  go  to  the  same  place  ? 

*I2K ,  contraction  of  &  Ei< ,  both  of  which  mean  if.  In  this  case 
of  highest  doubt  as  to  the  possibility  that  the  case  stated  should 
be  realized,  the  double  if  makes  the  expression  very  congruous. 
We  may  translate  by  even  if  The  1  before  the  particle  has  an 
influence  on  the  following  !"PH,  and  makes  an  Imperf.  or  Fut. 
".  —  BfBSB,  dual,  two  times,  used  adverbially,  like  our  twice. 
fctbh  with  in  interrog.  One  ijlace,  viz.,  Sheol,  the  grave.  —  S>3ft, 
the  whole  mass,  the  totality,  and  therefore  it  takes  the  article,  §  107, 
3,  n.  1,  b.  —  Tj^in ,  depart,  go  away,  as  very  often  in  this  book. 
The  question  here  asked  is  easily  understood,  and  is  equivalent 
to  a  strong  assertion.  The  idea  is :  '  Live  he  ever  so  long,  yet 
he  goes  at  last  to  the  same  place  as  the  untimely  birth,  i.  e.,  to 
the  region  of  the  dead ; '  so  that  "  one  destiny  awaits  all,"  with- 
out distinction,  3:19.  In  9  :  4  and  11  :  7,  our  author  speaks, 
of  the  high  value  to  be  set  upon  life,  and  the  pleasure  derived 
from  beholding  the  light  But  in  these  passages  a  contrast  is 
made  with  death,  and  the  latter  is  rendered  the  more  bitter 
b  :cauae  it  cuts  us  off  from  enjoyment.     But  in  the  text  before 


ECCLESIASTES    VI.  7,8.  233 

us,  life  is  not  asserted  to  be  of  no  value,  but  the  gist  of  the 
assertion  is,  that,  be  it  ever  so  long,  it  saves  us  not  from  going 
to  the  same  place  where  an  untimely  birth  has  gone,  I.  c,  the 
grave.  In  itself,  the  enjoyment  of  what  one  has  acquired  is  a 
good  which  is  desirable ;  but  the  time  is  at  hand  when  this  enjoy- 
ment will  be  no  more,  and  our  condition  will  then  be  the  more 
annoying,  because  of  what  we  have  lost. 

(7)  All  the  toil  of  man  is  for  his  mouth,  and  yet  the  soul  is  not  satisfied. 

This  connects  with  the  preceding  context.  There  it  is  de- 
clared, that  however  long  life  may  be,  yet  at  last  it  comes  to 
vanity.  All  must  go  down  to  the  grave.  Long  life,  therefore, 
will  not  secure  a  permanent  good.  All  the  toil  of  man  can  do 
no  more  than  procure  the  means  of  eating  and  drinking  —  it  is 
all  for  his  mouth,  i.  e.,  all  which  promises  enjoyment.  But  even 
here  our  hopes  are  in  a  measure  dashed.  The  author  has  too 
often  elsewhere  commended  eating  and  drinking,  i.  e.,  the  enjoy- 
ment of  the  fruits  of  toil  (see  in  2  :  24  ;  3  :  13  ;  5:17;  8  :  15), 
wholly  to  decry  it  here.  But  even  the  privilege  of  this  enjoy- 
ment has  its  drawbacks.  The  appetite  (u3E2H ,  the  animal  soul) 
is  never  satisfied  so  that  it  does  not  return.  The  same  want  and 
necessity  press  us  again,  which  we  felt  before  eating  and  drink- 
ing. Stable,  abiding  good,  then,  is  not  to  be  looked  for  even 
here.  Too  much  must  not  be  expected  from  this  source.  —  ca 
here  means  yet,  tamen;  see  Lex.  DS,  No.  5. 

(8)  Then  what  advantage  is  there  to  the  wise  man  over  the  fool,  and  what 
to  the  poor  man  who  knoweth  how  to  walk  before  the  living  1 

^3  is  variously  rendered ;  Knobel :  dock,  still;  Heiligs. :  immo, 
tamen;  neither  congruously.  It  is  the  ^3  apodotic,  i.  e.,  such  as 
is  employed  in  sentences  of  this  nature :  If —  so  and  so ;  then 
(^3)  this  or  that  is  the  consequence.  I  understand  the  question 
here  to  be  a  kind  of  apodosis  to  the  preceding  verse.  The  appe- 
tite is  not  satisfied;  —  then  (asks  the  inquirer)  how  do  the  wise 

20* 


234  ECCLESIASTES    VI.  9. 

have  any  more  advantage  than  fools,  for  both  have  the  same 
appetite  ?  The  last  part  of  the  verse  merely  sets  the  czn  in  a 
Bpecial  light.  He  is  regarded  as  being  a  *3| ,  a  poor  man,  but 
dexterously  conducting  himself.  To  walk  before  the  living,  is  to 
behave  with  propriety  and  discretion  before  men.  "Enoch 
walked  with  God,"  Gen.  5  :  24 ;  "I  am  God  .  .  .  walk  before  me, 
and  be  thou  perfect,"  Gen.  17  :  1.  —  ?Vh,  as  agreeing  with  iSSin 
(having  the  art.),  we  might  expect  would  also  have  the  article- 
pronoun  *n  ;  but  the  Part,  of  itself  contains  or  implies  the  pro- 
noun (§  131,  2,  n.  2),  and  the  repetition  of  it  is  not  necessary. 
In  Greek,  it  is  much  oftener  omitted  in  the  Part,  than  in  adjec- 
tives. —  VT\  is  used  in  this  book  frequently  to  designate  men  on 
the  stage  of  action.  Only  such  can  witness  one's  demeanor. 
Sentiment ;  '  If  what  you  have  said  about  desire  never  satisfied 
be  true,  what  advantage  is  there  in  superiority  of  knowledge,  or 
in  sagacious  correctness  of  demeanor  ? '  This  question  is  not 
directly  and  explicitly  answered  here.  It  has  already  been 
answered  in  one  respect,  in  2  :  14 — 16.  But  the  following  verse 
suggests  a  species  of  answer : 

(9)  The  sight  of  the  eyes  is  better  than  the  wandering  of  desire ;  this  too 
is  vanity  and  fruitless  effort. 

To  see  good  is,  as  we  have  seen,  usually  put  tropically  for  the 
enjoyment  of  it.  The  wandering  of  desire,  in  the  Heb.  T^iTQ,  is 
Inf.  with  o  because  of  the  Maqqeph  that  follows;  the  "Q  is  the 
sign  of  the  comparative  after  aits .  The  verb  s^H  means  to  go  in 
any  direction,  to  progress;  and  here  it  designates  the  fluctuating 
or  going  forth  of  desire  from  one  thing  to  another,  or  the  con- 
tinual motion  of  it.  In  other  words,  Coheleth  concedes  the  evil 
of  desiring  continually,  and  says  that  it  is  vanity  and  fruitless 
effort;  but  still,  he  maintains  thai  there  is  some  good  in  present 
enjoyment  The  r.\  refers  to  the  ttJBJ-TiVra .  The  use  of  Tj'sftb 
in  the  preceding  verse,  probably  occasioned  the  employment  of 
me  word  here.  Bui  it  is  in  the  way  of  paronomasia,  the 
an  anings  in  the  two  cares  being  quite  different. 


ECCLESIASTICS    VI.    10,11.  235 

The  writer  betakes  himself  once  more  to  his  usual  resort, 
when  evils  come  up  that  cannot  be  shunned.  Providence,  says 
he,  has  arranged  all  these  matters.  There  is  an  established  order 
and  succession  of  things,  and  it  is  of  no  avail  to  quarrel  with  it. 
Man  cannot  strive  with  his  Maker. 

(10)  That  which  is,  was  long  ago  called  by  name,  and  it  was  known, 
because  he  is  man,  that  he  is  unable  to  contend  with  him  who  is  stronger 
than  he. 

The  Perf.  i-r>H  is  here  used  as  an  abstract  Pres.,  including 
what  was  and  still  is,  §  124,  3.  Its  name  was  called,  i.  e.,  it  had 
a  name,  and  therefore  an  existence,  long  ago.  —  *ntdKf  because,  or 
since,  introduces  a  circumstance  which  serves  to  explain  the 
inability  that  is  asserted  in  the  sequel.  —  &MJ1,  he  is,  as  often 
elsewhere.  Man,  t.  e.,  a  frail  and  dying  creature,  springing  from 
the  dust,  and  returning  to  the  dust.  —  ^asp-a&l  connects  with 

S'ris,  it  was  known that  he  will  be  unable,  §  152,  B.  e. 

tpjsjnttia  is  said,  by  the  Masoretic  note  in  the  margin,  to  have  a 
superfluous  n ,  and  accordingly  it  has  no  vowel-point  assigned  to 
it.  But  there  is  no  need  of  this  criticism.  It  may  be  read  and 
pointed  v]^i5rn!^T'^5 ,  i.  e.,  him  who  is  the  mighty  One,  the  Almighty, 
of  course  with  the  article.  This  is  the  very  idea  that  the  writer 
meant  to  convey,  but  which  the  Punctators  failed  to  discover, 
ttj,  him  ivho.  —  *125353  =  in^HE,  than  him,  not  than  us.  Here  the 
sentiment  comes  out  so  fully,  that  striving  against  the  arrange- 
ments of  Providence  can  be  of  no  avail.  The  presumption  of 
so  doing  is  also  implied. 

(11)  Truly,  there  are  many  words  increasing  vanity ;  what  advantage  ia 
there  to  man  ? 

*3  here  is  clearly  not  causal,  but  intensive,  and  so  I  have 
translated  it.  It  might  be  well  rendered  by  however,  and  then 
the  shape  of  the  discourse  would  be  thus :  '  However,  I  will  say 
no  more,  since  much  speaking  has  already  been  condemned;' 


236  ECCLESIASTES    VI.    12. 

Bee  5  :  6,  and  remarks  on  4  :  1G.  —  EHS'TD,  Hiph.  Part,  of  ITCH. 

What  advantage  to  man?  i.  e.,  no  number  of  words,  however 
great,  can  disclose  a  permanent  and  immutable  good  for  him,  in 
the  present  world.     Words,  therefore,  are  multiplied  in  vain. 

(12)  For  •who  knoweth  what  is  good  for  man  in  life,  during  the  number 
of  the  days  of  Ids  vain  life,  since  he  spends  them  as  a  shadow ;  so  that  who 
can  tell  man  what  shall  be  after  him  under  the  sun  ? 

The  "E  at  the  beginning  may  be  rendered  for  (causal),  and 
then  its  connection  stands  thus  : '  What  advantage  is  there  to  man  ? 
[I  ask  this  question]  because  (^s)  who  knoiveth,'  etc.;  e.  e.,  'be- 
cause no  one  can  know  and  tell.  No  one  can  point  out  any 
stable  good,  not  even  in  the  future;  for  who  knoweth  the  future? 
In  life  ;  i.  e.,  while  a  man  is  living.  —  ^3p"a  is  Ace.  of  measure 
or  time,  and  needs  no  prep,  or  verb.  The  indication  is  that  of 
&  definite  number  told  or  appointed.  —  iban  ^n,  his  vain  life 
(§  104,  1),  i.  e.,  life  which  yields  no  solid  good.  —  Bb5';'i,  since 
he  spends,  or  with  "i  intensive :  he  even  spends  them.  That  hii*3> 
may  mean  the  same  as  ttouZv  xP°vov>  *°  spend  time,  is  plain  from 
Lex.  2,  g.  This  usage  is  even  somewhat  frequent.  The  suff. 
them  refers  to  the  preceding  days.  —  l>33,  as  a  shadow,  for  the 
article  here,  see  §  107,  3,  n.  1,  a.  It  is  inadmissible,  however, 
in  such  a  case,  in  our  language.  The  idea  is,  that  the  days  of 
man  pass  quickly  or  swiftly  away,  as  a  shadow  does  (comp.  8:  13 
Job  14  :  2).  — Trx,  here  (as  often)  is  like  h3,  so  that,  see  Lex. 
rrx  ;  No.  10.  Who  can  tell,  etc.;  i.  e.,  his  days  are  so  fleeting 
and  short,  that  no  one  can  gain  a  knowledge  which  will  enable 
him  to  see  and  foretell  future  things.  —  *"?"*<  may  be  rendered 
<///'/•  him,  or  after  iV,  vie.,  the  number  of  his  days.  What  is 
beyond  is  unknown  to  all ;  so  that  the  question  :  What  advantage 
is  therefor  man!  (in  v.  11)  must  remain  without  any  answer 
which  is  wholly  BatlsfactOIJ. 

[In  racfc  a  state  of  mind  as  is  here  described,  it  seems  strange  to  us  that 
the  inquirer  did  not  look  l«;j<jint  those  dark  and  gloomy  scenes  around  him. 


R.EM  ARKS    ON    CHAP.   VI.  237 

How  spontaneously  would  the  Christian,  in  like  circumstances,  now  look  by 
faith,  beyond  the  veil  of  time,  to  that  blessed  world  where  all  is  peace  and 
joy,  and  where  is  no  vanity  nor  vexation,  where  "  there  shall  be  no  more 
pain,  and  no  more  death  !  "  The  circumstance  above  adverted  to  is  of  itself 
a  very  significant  commentary  on  the  declaration  of  Paul,  that  "the gospel 
has  brought  life  and  immortality  to  light."  Surely,  if  Coheleth  enjoyed  the  full 
vision  of  this  immortality  which  Christians  now  enjoy,  lie  must  have  spon- 
taneously looked  for  the  adjustment  in  another  world  of  all  the  seeming  dif- 
ficulties, and  contradictions,  and  mysteries  that  are  apparent  in  this  world. 
Everywhere  does  Paul  rise  superior  to  his  sorrows,  when  he  directs  his  eye 
to  the  glories  of  the  upper  world.  His  afflictions  are  "  light,"  his  sufferings 
"only  for  a  moment,"  when  he  is  anticipating  "the  glory  that  is  to  be  re- 
vealed." And  so,  we  arc  ready  to  say,  must  Coheleth  have  felt  and  acted, 
had  he  cherished  such  a  strong  belief  as  Paul's.  But  are  we  not  somewhat 
hasty  in  reasoning  thus  from  the  one  case  to  the  other  1  When  one  sees  as 
clearly  as  Paul  did,  he  may  well  exult  in  hope,  and  forget  all  his  sorrows. 
But  can  the  same  animation  and  hope  be  expected  from  one  whose  lot  it  is 
to  live  only  in  the  twilight,  as  from  one  who  looks  on  the  meridian  sun  ?  It 
must  be  a  rare  case,  if  indeed  any  who  grope  their  way  by  the  glimmerings 
of  twilight,  yet  move  as  rapidly  and  cheerfully  as  those  who  travel  by  broad 
daylight. 

But  at  all  events,  Coheleth  does  not  stand  alone.  Where,  we  ask  again, 
is  the  appeal,  in  the  Book  of  Job,  to  a  future  adjustment  of  all  the  difficulties 
and  troubles  that  assailed  him'?  Read  Job  14  :7 — 14,  and  then  say  whether 
the  patriarch  felt  as  Paul  did  when  he  was  suffering ;  e.  g.,  as  described  in 
2  Cor.  4,  5.  The  celebrated  passage  in  Job  19  :  25 — 27,  will  hardly  stand 
the  test  of  criticism,  if  brought  to  support  such  an  appeal.  And  in  all  the 
laws  of  the  great  Jewish  legislator,  where  is  the  appeal  to  &future  judgment, 
a  heaA^en,  and  a  hell  ?  The  Hebrews  had  not  even  a  word  in  their  language, 
at  least  as  known  to  us,  which  corresponded  to  the  Gehenna  of  the  New 
Testament.  Vl»W  is  either  grave,  sepulchre,  or  else  world  of  the  dead,  region 
of  death  (as  in  Is.  xiv.),  but  never  Gehenna.  The  future  judgment  I  have  al- 
ready discussed,  under  3:17  above.  If  at  all  taught,  it  is  mostly  by  impli- 
cation ;  and  by  that  very  seldom.  Read  through  all  the  prophets,  i.  e.,  the 
preachers  to  the  Hebrews.  Promises  of  reward,  and  threats  of  punishment, 
are  everywhere  abundant ;  but  where,  except  in  Is.  26  :  19,  and  Dan.  12  :  3, 
is  there  anything  which  is  patent  respecting  the  future  state?  Many  arc  the 
promises  and  threats  in  the  Psalms  and  Proverbs ;  but  where,  excepting  in 
Ps.  16  :  11,  and  17  :  15,  is  there  anything  which  necessarily  respects  the 
future  world  1      We  bring  it  out,  indeed,  from  the  Jewish    Scriptures,  by 


238  REMARKS    ON    CHAP.   VI. 

transferring  our  New  Test,  ideas  to  the  exegesis  of  the  Old  Test. ;  but  did 
the  Jews  of  old  so  construe  their  Scriptures?  To  say  this,  would  be  attribut- 
ing to  them  more  than  Paul  is  willing  to  allow,  2  Tim.  1  :  10,  and  more 
than  John  would  be  willing  to  concede,  John  1:17,  18.  The  simple  truth 
is,  that  we  must  come  at  last,  in  the  way  of  exegesis,  to  the  concession  that 
the  Mosaic  dispensation  was  only  preparatory  to  the  gospel ;  it  was  "  only 
the  shadow  of  good  things  to  come."  There  was  enough  in  it  to  encourage 
the  obedient,  and  to  lead  to  faith  and  trust  in  God.  And  in  the  case  of 
Coheleth,  the  latter  part  of  his  book  shows  that  he  attained  at  last  to  a  stead- 
fast condition  of  mind,  and  that  all  his  inquiries  terminated  in  leading  him 
to  a  belief  in  a  future  judgment,  and  to  a  deep  conviction  that  to  "  fear 
God,  and  keep  his  commandments,"  is  the  great  end  of  man's  being,  Ecc. 
1:2  :  13,  14.  Through  how  many  doubts  and  difficulties  he  had  to  pass  with 
his  busy  and  inquiring  spirit,  the  book  before  us  shows.  But  let  us  not 
understand  him  as  having  come  to  a  real  ultimatum  before  he  gets  through 
the  contest  with  his  doubts  and  difficulties.  We  have,  specially  in  the 
chapter  above  considered,  a  despairing  and  hesitating  frame  of  mind ;  a 
state  which  bounded  his  circle  of  vision  by  narrow  limits  for  the  time  being  ; 
one  which  made  life  a  burden  to  him ;  one  from  which  he  found  no  escape, 
and  for  which  he  could  find  no  substantial  alleviation  but  in  the  unques- 
tioned and  unquestionable  supremacy  of  the  Divine  Being.  Whatever  is 
wrong  in  men,  and  however  much  of  evil  is  done,  he  still  believes  that  "God 
made  man  upright,"  while  "the  evil  inventions  "  are  his  own.  Must  it  not 
be  conceded,  then,  that  there  was  in  him  a  strong  and  active  principle  of 
living  faith,  which  could  support  him  amid  such  trials  and  such  inquiries, 
and  keep  him  steadfast  in  the  attitude  of  reverence  and  submission  ?  It 
would  really  seem,  after  all,  that  while  he  had  far  less  light  than  we  have,  he 
had  more  of  filial  reverence  and  submission  than  most  of  us  would  venture 
to  claim.  "Who  can  help  feeling  the  deepest  interest  in  the  struggles  of 
such  an  inquiring,  sensitive,  and  anxious  man  ?  He  docs,  indeed,  at  times 
I  to  succumb,  and  to  wish  for  death.  So  did  Jo!) ;  and  so  did  Jonah. 
But,  after  all,  the  tenor  of  his  book  is  far  from  inculcating  gloom  and 
reckless  despair.  Cheerfulness  and  sober  enjoyment  arc  everywhere 
commended,  when  he  comes  to  advise  and  to  give  precepts.  All  impiety, 
lightmindedness,  murmuring,  and  distrust  of  God's  justice  or  good- 
Dess,  are  discarded  by  him  and  condemned,  even  in  the  midst  of  all  the 
temptations  t«>  indulge  such  feelings,  while  one  is  under  hopeless  suffering 
under  an  oppressive  government,  and  has  only  glimpses  of  the  world  of 
future  happiness.  To  any  one  who  reads  the  book  intelligently,  who  looks 
at  the  condition,  and  ign  of  the  writer,  such  a  struggle  in  regard 


REMARKS    ON    CHAP.    VI.  230 

to  the  most  interesting  question  man  can  ask :  viz.,  How  can  I  find  true  and 
lasting  happiness  ?  —  to  such  a  one  a  picture  is  presented,  to  be  contemplated 

with  the  most  lively  emotions.  It  is  .only  when  we  mistake  the  tenor  and 
ohjeet  of  the  book,  and  look  for  and  demand  that  which  is  not  in  it,  nor  in 
any  other  book  of  the  Old  Test,  (except  as  stated  above),  —  it  is  only  then, 
that  we  meet  with  insoluble  difficulties  at  every  turn.  No  one  who  gets  an 
enlightened  view  of  the  whole  book  can  feel  that  a  straight  going  exegesis 
will  endanger  our  faith.  Quite  the  contrary.  We  are  led  to  see,  step  by 
step,  what  the  mind  can  struggle  with  and  overcome,  where  there  is  an  un- 
shaken confidence  in  God  at  the  bottom  of  the  heart.  If  one  in  ages  past, 
before  the  Sun  of  Righteousness  arose  in  his  full  splendor,  could  thus 
struggle  and  thus  triumph,  shame  and  reproach  to  us,  who  live  under  the 
full,  blaze  of  gospel  light,  if  we  doubt,  and  grow  cold,  and  murmur  when 
the  ways  of  Providence  are  mysterious  and  afflictive  to  us ! 

That  Neologists  should  exult  in  the  alleged  scepticism  of  this  book,  is  no 
wonder  indeed ;  but  I  cannot  think  it  to  be  indicative  of  much  candor  and 
liberality  of  feeling.  Coheleth  is  an  ardent  inquirer,  and  in  one  respect,  if  I 
may  be  allowed  to  say  it,  he  is  like  them,  i.  e.f  he  is  a  philosopher.  But  Co- 
heleth's  philosophy  begins  with  doubts,  and  ends  with  deep  conviction  of 
truth,  and  with  reverence  for  God  and  his  commandments.  Their  course  is 
usually  the  reverse  of  this.  Kant's  last  words  are  said  to  have  been,  "  All 
is  dark."  And  so  indeed  it  is,  where  the  Bible  is  superseded,  and  one's 
own  reason  becomes  the  supreme  arbiter  of  all  things.  Even  if  Coheleth 
he  in  reality  a  doubter  in  immortality,  it  would  not  prove  that  all  the  He- 
brews were  so;  it  could  not  disprove  the  assertion  of  Paul,  that  Abraham 
"  looked  for  a  city  which  hath  foundations,  whose  builder  and  maker  is 
Go -1,"  nor  could  it  convict  him  of  error  when  he  declared  that  other  patri- 
archs did  "seek  a  better  country,  even  a  heavenly  one,"  Heb.  11  :  10 — 16. 
Such  critics  mistake  the  doubts  suggested  in  the  process  of  investigation  in 
this  book  for  the  confirmed  opinions  of  the  writer  himself,  and  thus  they 
argue  against  all  knowledge  of  the  future  among  the  Hebrews  from  his 
alleged  views.  They  seem  to  ignore  the  fact  that  what  the  writer  under- 
takes in  this  book  is  not  to  discuss  the  doctrine  of  the  soul's  immortality, 
or  the  existence  of  a  future  world,  but  to  ask,  and  if  possible  answer,  the 
question,  Is  there  any  solid  and  lasting  good  attainable  in  the  present  world  ? 
They  may  wonder,  and  so  may  we,  that  the  author  rarely  steps  beyond  the 
boundaries  of  this  question,  until  near  the  close  of  the  book.  We  can 
scarcely  repress  the  feeling  that  views  of  the  future  must  have  thrust  them- 
selves in  as  the  means  of  solving  many  a  nodus  which  is  presented.  And 
we  have  that  same  feeling  when  we  read  the  Book  of  Job,  which  in  many 


\ 


240  ECCLESIASTES    VII.    1-29. 

respects  has  resemblances  to  Ecclcsiastes.  Yet,  in  cases  of  this  kind,  very 
much  depends  on  the  special  object  which  the  writer  had  in  view,  as  well  as 
on  his  state  of  knowledge.  Inspiration  does  not  put  a  man  out  of  the  age 
and  country  in  which  he  lives.  The  circumstantials  of  a  writer  remain  the 
same,  whether  inspired  or  not.  And  these  always  affect  the  costume  of  his 
work.  Let  Cohelcth  be  judged,  then,  by  his  time,  his  circumstances,  and 
the  object  he  had  in  view;  and  if  so,  his  book  need  not  fear  the  tribunal  of 
criticism.  The  work  is  far  enough  removed  from  the  gloomy  conceptions 
and  views  of  a  hopeless  sceptic,  and  from  the  tame  and  dull  truisms  of  a 
wiseacre.  It  is  full  of  vivacity,  of  deep  feeling,  and  of  a  pervading  spirit 
of  submission  to  God  in  all  his  doings.  If  we  do  not  profit  by  it,  the  fault 
is  our  own.l 


§11.  Alleviations  in  various  distressing  Circumstances.  Caution 
as  to  Demeanor  toward  Oppressors  and  Rulers.  Our 
Miseries  are  not  from  God,  but  from  the  Perversion  of 
Men. 

Chap.  VII.  1—29. 

[Left  in  despair  of  any  adequate  remedy  for  the  evils  of  life,  or  of  attain- 
ing to  wisdom  adequate  to  point  out  true  and  lasting  good,  the  writer  de- 
clares  death  to  be  preferable  to  life.  Death  is  indeed  an  evil,  but  not 
unmixed  with  good;  for  some  advantage,  in  such  a  case,  may  accrue  to 
mourners,  and  the  wise  may  profit  by  being  among  them.  Fools  only 
desire  continual  merriment:  vi.  1 — 4.  But  even  the  rebuke  of  the  wise, 
well  administered,  is  better  than  the  merry  shouts  of  fools,  which  are  short- 
lived, vs.  5,  6.  Still,  the  icise  are  sometimes  thrown  off  their  guard  by  pas- 
sion, which  causes  much  misery,  and  makes  even  the  wise  grow  mad  under 
it.  But  they  ought  to  wait  with  patience  for  the  end  of  such  things,  and 
see  how  Providence  disposes  of  the  issue  or  sequel,  and  not  to  be  impetuous 
in  their  feelings,  nor  to  complain  of  the  badness  of  the  times,  vs.  7 — 10. 
After  all,  wisdom,  as  well  as  a  heritage,  is  of  some  profit,  although  imper- 
fectly attained,  and  liable  to  be  blinded  for  the  moment  by  untoward  circum- 
stance.. Both  wisdom  and  money  are  at  times  a  protection,  vs.  11,12. 
Still,  we  must  remember  that  God  has  ordered  all  matters,  and  that  we 
ought  to  submit  to  his  ordinances,  v.  13.  Agreeably  to  his  ordinance,  we 
ice  in  prosperity;  but  we  should  also  consider  well  in  the  day  of 
Grod  disposes  of  both  these  in  the  way  of  alternation,  and  in 


ECCLESIASTES    VII.    1—29.  241 

such  a  way  that  wo  cannot  scan  his  doings,  v.  14.     All  this  Cohelcth  has 

reflected  upon  while  engaged  in  his  vain  pursuit.  Nor  docs  the  mystery  stop 
even  here.  The  righteous  sometimes  perish  through  their  probity,  and  the 
wicked  enjoy  long  life  through  their  improbity,  v.  15.  To  this  the  writer 
brings  forward  a  kind  of  reply,  or  at  least  an  attempt  at  explanation.  It 
comes  in  the  form  of  a  precept,  the  purport  of  which  is  to  tell  how  the  evil 
in  question  may  be  shunned.  One  must  not  be  rigidly  unbending  in  his 
righteousness,  carrying  the  matter  to  severe  excess.  Nor  should  he  sedu- 
lously endeavor  to  show  how  wise  he  is,  for  this  will  make  him  singular  and 
cause  him  to  be  deserted.  Nor  should  he  be  very  wicked,  since  this  would 
show  him  to  be  a  fool ;  for  it  brings  on  a  premature  death.  It  is  good  to 
attend  well  to  both  these  cautions,  for  he  who  fears  God  will  proceed  with 
both  in  his  eye,  vs.  15 — 18.  That  this  comment  on  the  destiny  of  the  right- 
eous and  the  wicked  (v.  15),  and  on  the  wisdom  here  aimed  at  (v.  10),  is 
not  satisfactory  to  the  writer,  will  appear  in  the  sequel.  For  the  present,  as 
wisdom  has  been  spoken  of  in  the  attempted  reply,  as  a  means  of  destroying 
or  making  one  desolate,  he  contents  himself  with  remarking  that  wisdom  is 
a  more  effectual  security  for  protection  than  ten  military  chieftains  with  their 
forces.  In  respect  to  such  protection  wisdom  docs  at  times  what  virtue  fails 
to  do,  because  all  men  sometimes  sin,  and  then  not  their  virtue  but  their  skill 
protects  them;  vs.  19,20.  If  one  makes  an  effort  to  act  wisely,  he  will 
doubtless  set  in  motion  the  tongue  of  slander;  but  he  must  give  no  heed  to 
it,  for  it  is  not  worth  minding.  If  you  are  over-eager  to  listen,  you  will 
hear  something  to  your  own  disadvantage,  even  from  servants.  Besides, 
you  yourself  have  sometimes  indulged  in  such  scandal,  and  you  must  there- 
fore expect  it  from  others,  vs.  21,  22.  Cohelcth  now  sums  up  by  saying 
that  he  has  with  wariness  subjected  to  trial  the  wisdom  of  which  so  much  is 
said,  in  order  to  discover  its  true  nature,  and  tried  to  become  wise  in  this 
matter.  But  he  has  found  the  thing  too  remote  and  deep  to  be  probed,  vs. 
23,  24.  He  has  pursued  the  investigation  of  wisdom  by  considering  it  as 
contrasted  with  folly  and  madness,  v.  25.  Of  this  folly,  he  has  sought  out 
the  most  prominent  and  conspicuous  sources  and  exemplars.  He  has  found 
these  in  the  ensnaring  women  of  his  time,  whose  seductive  appearance  and 
demeanor  are  so  alluring  and  fatal,  that  only  those  specially  favored  of  God 
escape  from  them.  He  has  desired  to  find  some  abatement  of  this  charge, 
but  he  cannot  find  one  in  a  thousand  who  is  to  be  excepted.  Among  men 
the  case  is  somewhat  better.  But  even  there  examples  are  very  rare,  vs. 
27,  28.  But  whence  come  such  abounding  perversity  and  wickedness'? 
Cud  made  man  upright;  therefore  it  is  not  to  lie  put  to  his  account,  but  to 
the  account  of  man  himself,  who  has  degenerated,  v.  29. 

21 


\ 


242  ECCLESIASTES    VII.  1—29. 

This  chapter  may  he  numbered  among  the  most  difficult  in  the  book. 
There  is  less  of  orderly  sequency  and  of  close  or  discernible  connection. 
Actual  digressions,  indeed,  are  not  exactly  to  be  found  in  the  chapter ;  but 
transitions  from  one  subject,  or  one  aspect  of  a  subject,  to  another  are  fre- 
quent To  a  mere  cursory  reader  much  of  the  chapter  has  the  appearance 
of  apothegms  or  sententious  sayings,  like  the  Book  of  Proverbs.  But  a 
closer  examination  dissipates  this  illusion,  and  shows,  in  the  main,  a  con- 
nected undercurrent  of  thought.  Still,  it  is  miscellaneous.  The  writer 
goes,  for  example,  from  the  subject  of  death  and  mourning  to  that  of  oppres- 
sion, and  strives  to  present  some  alleviations  and  administer  some  cautions 
in  both  cases.  Once  more  he  resumes  the  oft-considered  topic  of  wisdom, 
and  also  glances  again  at  that  of  wealth.  Both  of  these  things  have  their 
value  in  some  respects;  but  they  cannot  reverse  or  stay  the  ordinances  of 
Providence.  God  has  designed  to  hide  some  things  from  our  view,  and 
therefore  we  cannot  search  them  out ;  but  our  safe  course  is  to  yield  implicit 
submission  to  his  will.  Some  things  take  place  which  confound  us ;  the 
righteous  suffer  the  doom  of  the  wicked,  and,  vice  versa,  the  wicked  prosper 
as  if  righteous.  This  cannot  be  explained  by  putting  it  to  the  account  of 
excess  in  the  righteous,  and  of  small  sins  in  the  wicked.  Excess  in  either 
is  not  the  ground  on  which  this  matter  rests.  As  to  wisdom,  it  often  serves 
for  a  defence,  even  where  virtue  would  not  or  could  not.  because  it  is  so  im- 
perfect. Let  no  one  be  dissuaded  from  laboring  to  attain  wisdom,  by  the 
tongue  of  slander  and  scandal.  Give  no  ear  to  it,  and  thus  escape  the  mor- 
tifications of  it.  As  to  the  essential  nature  of  wisdom,  what  it  is  in  itself, 
and  whence  it  originates,  we  cannot  develop  these  matters  as  we  may  wish. 
But  something  we  may  know  by  looking  at  and  considering  the  opposite  of 
wisdom,  viz.,  filly.  The  most  striking  examples  of  this  are  among  enticing 
women ;  examples  of  virtue,  moreover,  are  very  rare,  even  among  men. 
So  much  at  all  events,  is  clear,  amid  all  that  may  be  doubtful,  viz.,  that 
God  made  man  upright,  and  that  he  has  corrupted  himself 

Such  is  tbe  tenor  of  thought,  briefly  expressed,  and  divested  of  all  its 
circumstantial  minutiae.  This  is  a  discursive  method  of  writing,  beyond 
any  doubt ;  but  still,  discursiveness  and  free  latitude  in  thinking  pervade  the 
book,  and  designedly  so.  Yet  it  is  far  from  being  a  second  book  of  Prov- 
erbs.  Single  and  unconnected  apothegms  are  rare  indeed  in  it,  and  in  fact 
never  appear,  as  has  already  been  said,  except  for  the  purpose  of  illustration. 
Bat  to  claim  for  it  tbe  regular  series  of  a  continuous  logical  process  through- 
out, would  plainly  be  to  make  an  extravagant  and  inadmissible  claim.  Such 
i-  ii"t  the  manner  of  Hebrew  writing  anywhere.  Paul  himself,  though  a 
master  logician  in  fact,  with  few  exceptions,  never  presents  us  with  a  regular 


ECCLESIASTES    VII.  1.  243 

and  continued  scries  of  ratiocination.  The  times,  the  style,  the  genius  of 
the  Hebrew  people  neither  required  nor  admitted  this.  But  Cohclcth  has  a 
wide  licid  before  him,  which  he  explores  in  search  of  some  solid  and  abiding 
earthly  good.  When  he  viewed  some  of  the  leading  pursuits  of  men  in  one 
light,  and  dismissed  them  as  disappointing  our  hopes,  on  another  occasion 
something  brings  them  to  his  view  in  another  attitude,  and  he  again  contem- 
plates them,  and  then  decides  as  before.  It  is  in  this  way  that  the  seeming 
repetition  occurs  ;  but  excepting  his  repeated  final  conclusions,  it  is  rare  to 
find  the  same  thing  looked  at  again  in  the  same  attitude  and  in  the  same 
light  as  before.  Free  digressive  remarks  often  spring  from  ideas  associated 
with  something  which  he  mentions,  and  called  forth  by  that  something ;  and 
one  must,  narrowly  watch  for  this,  who  desires  to  explore  the  course  of 
thought  and  the  connection  of  topics.  He  must  not  think  of  binding  him  to 
the  consecution  of  a  Paley  or  a  "Whewell.  He  must  rather  read  the  Consessus 
Hariri,  or  the  Gnomes  of  some  of  the  oriental  philosophers,  or  the  book  of 
the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  if  he  wishes  to  obtain  light  on  the  question  of  method 
in  the  book  before  us.  It  is  through  and  through  oriental,  and  has  some 
strong  resemblance  in  more  than  one  respect,  to  some  parts  of  the  Mislma. 
"Withal,  it  is  verily  Hebrew  in  its  manner  and  method ;  but  not  Hebrew  his- 
tory, or  prophecy,  or  Psalms.  It  is  Hebrew  philosophizing,  and  at  least 
as  intelligible  as  that  of  our  cousin- Germans.  Perhaps  parts  of  it  have 
hecn  as  little  understood  as  some  of  their  works.  But  patience  is  said  to 
master  even  their  works  ;  perseverance  and  a  good  knowledge  of  the  He- 
brew idiom  will  make  most  of  this  book,  if  not  all,  quite  intelligible.  We 
now  come  to  the  detail.] 

( 1 )  Better  is  a  good  name  than  precious  ointment,  and  so  the  day  of  one's 
death  than  of  his  birth. 

The  first  Sia  is  predicate,  and  so  (as  usual  for  a  predicate 
adjective)  it  stands  first,  §  141.  —  txo  of  itself  may  mean  good 
name,  by  established  Heb.  usage,  Prov.  22  : 1 ;  Job  30  :  8.  The 
second  Si'a  qualifies  1[&B,  and  shows  that  it  means  perfumed  or 
'precious  ointment.  The  writer  introduces  this  merely  for  the 
sake  of  throwing  light,  by  comparison,  on  the  sentence  that  fol- 
lows ;  i.  e.,  the  day  of  one's  death  is  as  much  better  than  that  of 
his  birth  as  a  good  name  is  better  than  good  oil.  Doubtless 
illustrations  as  striking  as  this  might  have  been  selected  from 
other  objects.     But  this  bears  every  mark  of  being  a  common 


\ 


2U  ECCLESIASTES    VII.  2. 

apothegm  ;  and  it  was  probably  chosen  on  this  ground.  —  "i"^^' 
Niph.  Inf.  Nominas.  of  "iV",  lit.  of  being  brought  forth.  The  suff. 
here  indicates  that  there  is  an  implied  suffix  after  M^SJi ;  which 
I  have  given  in  the  version.  In  this  case  1  as  often  is  equivalent 
to  and  so,  or  and  thus ;  see  Gram.  §  152,  B.  (3).  The  verse 
before  us  reasserts  in  another  form  the  sentiment  of  6:3.  New 
reasons  for  despair,  exhibited  in  6  :  4 — 12,  have  made  Coheleth 
more  sick  at  heart  than  ever.  He  does  not  say  merely  that  he 
would  as  willingly  die  as  live,  but  that  death,  the  termination  of 
life,  is  altogether  better  than  birth,  the  commencement  of  it. 
But  if  death  be  not  at  present  attainable  (he  never  once  speaks, 
and  never  appears  to  think,  of  suicide),  then  the  next  most 
mournful  concern,  attendance  on  the  death  or  burial  of  others,  is 
most  in  unison  with  his  then  present  feelings.  In  point  of  fact, 
indeed,  a  man  may  be  profited  by  resort  to  the  house  of  mourn- 
ing. 

(2)  It  is  better  to  go  to  the  house  of  mourning  than  to  go  to  the  house  of 
feasting,  because  this  is  the  end  of  all  men,  and  the  living  will  lay  it  to 
heart. 

The  word  iTSjlSB ,  banquet,  is  often  employed  in  the  more  gen- 
eral sense  given  to  it  here,  t.  e.,  feast.  —  K'tt,  this  is,  §  119,  2. 
EpO ,  the  end,  but  the  article  required  is  put  before  the  Gen.  noun 
that  follows,  §  109, 1.  —  C^x ,  man,  mankind,  or  every  man,  generic. 
'rn,  sing,  generic,  and  designating  a  class,  it  takes  the  article  ; 
§  107,  3,  n.  1,  b.  Lay  it  or  put  it  to  heart,  is  the  familiar  phrase 
in  Ileb.  to  designate  the  consideration  of  a  thing ;  for  this  mean- 
ing of  "(P3,  see  Lex.  It  is  placing  the  thing  before  the  mind,  in 
order  that  it  may  be  the  object  of  consideration.  H'itzig  says 
that  there  are  two  benefits  designated  here  as  belonging  to  the 
house  of  mourning :  the  one,  which  the  author  claims  for  him- 
self, since  he  cannot  himself  die,  the  pleasure  of  seeing  others 
permitted  to  die;  the  other,  the  sober  reflection  which  is  occa- 
sioned in  all,  and  is  useful  to  them.  The  first  of  these  reasons 
appears  strained  and  unnatural,  too  much  so  to  be  admissible  ; 


ECCLESIASTES    VII.   3—5.  245 

the  second  is  enough  to  establish  the  letter  in  the  case  which  is 
asserted.  This  is  the  end  —  what?  The  answer  must  be,  that 
the  house  of  mourning  is,  i.  e.,  represents,  symbolizes  in  an 
expressive  manner,  the  end  or  death  of  all  men. 

(3)  Better  is  sorrow  than  laughter;  for  by  the  sadness  of  the  countenance 
the  heart  is  made  glad. 

&55,  aegritudo,  mocror,  grief  or  sorrow ;  often  it  means  vexa- 
tion, irritation,  but  not  so  here,  as  the  antithesis  shows.  —  pinb , 
lit.  laughter,  but  this  is  merely  the  expression  here  of  merriment, 
the  opposite  of  sorrow.  —  sn ,  sadness,  see  Lex.  —  5a^ ,  Imperf. 
with  Pattah,  §  69,  1.  The  heart  is  made  glad;  Hitzig:  is  made 
sound.  But  plainly  soundness  is  not  the  opposite  of  sadness; 
and  Sia ,  moreover,  has  all  along  the  sense  of  enjoyment,  glad- 
ness. Usually,  the  countenance  expresses  the  state  of  the  heart, 
and  when  that  is  sorrowful,  we  conclude  the  heart  to  be  so  ;  see 
in  Neh.  2  :  2.  But  there  the  writer  employs  an  Oxymoron,  in 
order  to  express  himself  with  point  (see  this  word  explained  in 
New  Test.  Gramm.  p.  300).  We  might  say,  with  something  of 
the  like  point :  The  look  is  sad,  but  the  heart  not  bad.  —  axa'w 
need  not  be  regarded  as  implying  mere  ordinary  merriment  here, 
but  the  pleasure  derived  from  sober  reflection.  The  whole  verse 
is  only  an  extension  of  the  thought  in  v.  2.  In  v.  4  we  have  an 
exhibition  of  the  part  which  wisdom  will  act. 

(4)  The  heart  of  the  wise  is  in  the  house  of  mourning;  but  the  heart  of 
fools  in  the  house  of  merriment. 

For  the  reasons  above  stated,  we  may  anticipate  what  part  the 
wise  will  act.  They  will  frequent  the  house  of  mourning,  for  the 
solid  profit  which  will  accrue ;  but  fools,  who  love  laughter,  will 
prefer  the  house  of  merriment.  Heart,  in  the  text,  means  inclina- 
tion, feeling,  which  prompts  the  course  in  question. 

(5)  Better  is  it  to  hear  the  rebuke  of  a  wise  man,  than  that  one  should 
hear  the  song  of  fools. 

21* 


2-46  ECCLESIASTICS    VII.   0,7. 

This  is  partly  digressive.  The  writer  pursues  the  idea  of  the 
difference  between  the  foolish  and  the  wise,  beyond  the  matter 
of  mourning  and  rejoicing.  So  much  more  highly  are  the  wise 
to  be  held  in  estimation,  that  one  had  rather  suffer  even  rebuke 
from  them,  than  to  hear  the  plaudit-song  of  fools.  As  song  here 
is  the  opposite  of  rebuke,  so  encomiastic  or  plaudit-song  is  plainly 
meant.  In  other  words:  Rebuke  from  the  wise  is  more  tolerable 
than  the  eulogy  of  fools.  —  Tdd ,  Part,  auditurus,  or  it  may 
merely  express  the  repeated  act  of  hearing,  i.  e.,  what  one 
habitually  does  ;  which  is  a  special  office  of  the  participle.  The 
Heb.  runs  thus,  lit. :  than  a  man,  the  hearer  of  a  song,  etc.  The 
plaudit-song  of  fools  is,  indeed,  noisy  enough,  but  very  short- 
lived and  insignificant.     So  the  next  verse  : 

(6)  For  as  the  noise  of  thorns  under  a  pot,  so  is  the  laughter  of  the  fool. 
This  too  is  vanity. 

There  is  a  kind  of  paronomasia  or  assonance  in  this  verse. 
The  preceding  verse  has  D^D3,  and  this  D'niSri  (art.  generic)  ; 
In  v.  G  itself,  ^*sn  follows  d^vsn ;  words  evidently  selected  for 
the  sake  of  assonance;  for  this  is  often  employed  to  give  point 
to  a  sententious  saying.  The  state  of  Palestine  as  to  fuel,  makes 
plain  the  expression,  thorns  under  the  pot.  Bushes  are  the  only 
fuel,  and  the  thorn  of  the  desert,  often  employed  in  cooking  food, 
blazes  and  snaps  fiercely,  and  makes  much  noise  for  a  little 
while,  and  leaves  few  if  any  coals  behind.  Of  course  something 
more  substantial  is  needed  for  convenient  use.  So  is  it  with  the 
noisy  merriment —  the  laughter  and  song  of  fools.  We  have  a 
vulgar  proverb  of  nearly  the  same  tenor  as  that  here  quoted : 
Great  cry  and  little  wool.  The  *®  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse, 
shows  that  the  design  is  to  give  the  ground  of  the  preceding 
declaration.  —  Ml,  this  too,  I.  e.,  this  as  well  as  other  things 
before  mentioned. 

(7)  Rut  oppression  rendereth  mad  n  wise  man,  and  a  gift  corrupteth  the 
heart. 


ECCLESIASTICS    VII.  8.  247 

Rendereth  mad,  i.  e.,  foolish  ;  in  other  words,  the  practice  of 
oppressing  will  soon  bring  a  wise  man  to  act  as  a  fool.  The 
author  refers  to  the  practice  of  the  magistrates  of  that  day,  of 
which  he  so  often  complains.  As  to  making  mad,  comp.  Is. 
44  :  25.  As  to  the  character  and  effect  of  the  gift  (bribery), 
see  Deut.  16  :  19  ;  Exod.  23  :  8.  —  *J2!0,  in  Piel,  either  leads 
astray,  which  is  the  original  idea,  or  corrupts,  in  the  moral  sense. 
sb ,  heart,  i.  e.,  mind  or  soul.  In  Arabic,  Hahem  (=.  ten)  means 
magistrate,  and  not  improbably  it  does  so  in  the  passage  before 
us;  for  it  is  the  corruption  of  sl  judge,  to  which  the  gift  (bribery) 
refers.  In  such  a  case,  there  would  be  an  exception  to  the  value 
of  a  rebuke  from  a  Dsn ,  as  mentioned  in  v.  5 ;  and  perhaps  the 
writer  means  to  produce  an  oppressive  D=n  here  in  the  way  of 
an  exception  to  the  general  principle. 

(8)  The  end  of  a  matter  is  better  than  its  beginning;  forbearance  of 
spirit  is  better  than  haughtiness  of  spirit. 

The  first  part  of  the  verse  seems  at  first  view  to  be  a  kind  of 
parallel  to  v.  1.  But  in  v.  8  it  stands  in  a  different  connection. 
Both  parts  of  the  verse  are  doubtless  proverbial  sayings,  applied 
by  the  writer  to  the  case  in  hand.  What  he  means  is,  that  the 
end  of  this  matter  of  oppressing  will  show  at  last  the  true  state 
of  the  thing  ;  and  that  it  is  better  to  wait  —  to  exercise  forbear- 
ance of  mind,  than  haughtily  to  resent  the  injuries  received. 
We  might  expect  mi  "isp,  hastiness  of  spirit,  in  contrast  with 
>yn  7£8.  But  haughtiness  is  the  passion  which  most  and  quick- 
est of  all  resents  oppression,  being  very  sensitive  to  indignity. 
The  caution  is,  not  to  move  too  hastily  in  such  a  matter,  but  to 
wait,  and  see  how  it  will  turn  out  in  the  sequel.  That  such  is 
the  indication,  may  be  seen  by  what  follows.  —  ^nx  is  probably 
the  const,  form  of  "rpN  (adj.),  according  to  the  vowel-points. 
The  sense  is  better,  at  least  more  expressive,  if  pointed  ?fnK 
(as  a  noun)  ;  and  so  Pjha  (Infin.  noun)  may  be  regarded  as  a 
parallel  construction  with  tri*. 


248  ECCLESIASTES    VII.  9—11. 

(9)  Be  not  hasty  in  thy  spirit  to  be  irritated,  for  irritation  dwcHeth  in  the 
bosom,  of  fools. 

This  repeats  the  sentiment  of  the  preceding  verse,  with  an 
additional  reason.  Avoid  an  irritable  temper  of  mind,  for  only 
the  foolish  indulge  it.  '  Embroil  not  yourself  with  the  oppressive 
ruler,  by  reason  of  hasty  vexation  or  sudden  passion,'  is  the  sub- 
stance of  the  sentiment.  —  rW,  Imperf.  of  ritt,  indicating  (as 
often)  habitude,  §  125,  4.  b. 

(10)  Say  not,  Why  is  it  that  former  days  were  better  than  these?  for 
thou  dost  not  inquire  wisely  respecting  this. 

i-PH,  was  and  still  is.  —  W,  that.  —  rra?rT0,  lit.  fro?n  ivisdom, 
i.  e.,  it  comes  not  from  wisdom  as  its  source  =  wisely.  —  nH>5, 
concerning  this,  viz.,  concerning  the  superiority  of  former  times 
over  the  present.  This  has  a  bearing  on  the  then  present  state 
of  things.  Men  are  presented  as  groaning  under  oppression  ; 
and  present  evils  are  always  magnified  in  the  view  of  sufferers. 
Hence  it  is  natural  to  praise  former  times,  as  if  they  were  ex- 
empt from  evils,  when  in  fact  their  evils  are  merely  forgotten. 
Every  day,  even  now,  furnishes  us  with  examples  of  this  kind. 
Coheleth  means  to  say  that  '  such  comparisons  will  provoke  the 
rulers  as  well  as  help  to  aggravate  our  evils,  and  thus  increase 
the  difficulties  which  they  occasion.  Therefore  be  wise,  and 
refrain  from  this.'  That  this  is  implied,  seems  to  be  clearly 
shown  from  the  next  two  verses,  which  speak  in  praise  of  wis- 
dom,  i.  c.,  discretion  or  sagacity. 

(11)  Wisdom  is  good  as  well  as  an  inheritance,  specially  to  those  who 
Bee  the  sun. 

In  other  words :  'Act  wisely  in  respect  to  rulers;  for  wisdom 

will  protect  yon  as  much  as  money.     It  is  of  great  benefit  to 

tlio  e  who  are  in  active  life.'  —  hbrja  b?,  as  well  as  wealth;  for 

.    may  and  docs  have  such  a  meaning,  is  clear;  see  2  :  1G, 

and  remarks  there,  and  also  Lex.  D5,  B.  1.  d.      The  word  in* 


ECCLESIASTES    VII.    12,13.  249 

heritance  has  here  a  more  generic  sense,  meaning  wealth  of  any 
kind.  Besides,  in  the  next  verse,  wealth  or  money  is  made  coordi- 
nate with  wisdom,  not  subordinate  to  it.  The  sentiment  drawn 
by  many  from  this  verse,  viz.,  that  '  wisdom  is  good  if  you  have 
money  with  it,'  is  both  tame  and  untrue  in  its  implication  ;  for 
the  implication  would  be,  that  wisdom  is  not  good  unless  accom- 
panied by  wealth.  —  ^"i"1,  an  adverb  here,  viz.,  very,  very  much, 
abundantly;  see  in  2:15.  Sentiment:  'Wisdom  is  good  as  well 
as  wealth,  and  especially  good  for  those  on  the  stage  of  action.' 
Those  who  see  the  sun,  means  living  men  abroad  in  the  world  of 
action  ;  com  p.  G  :  5  ;  1 1  :  7.  So  the  Greeks  :  'Opav  </>aos  =  £r}v ; 
and  so  the  Latins :  Diem  videre. 

(12)  For  wisdom  is  a  defence,  and  silver  is  a  defence;  but  a  preeminence 
of  knowledge  is  wisdom,  which  preserves  the  lives  of  its  possessors. 

In  b^S ,  the  S  is  the  so-called  5  esseniiae,  and  therefore  need 
not  be  translated,  indeed  cannot  be,  so  as  truly  to  represent  the 
Heb.  idiom.  See  Lex.  a,  D.,  and  compare  aiaa  in  v.  14  =  3^. 
See  in  Job  23  :  13  ;  Gen.  49  :  24,  al.  in  Lex.  —  bs,  lit.  shadotu. 
In  the  glowing  east,  shade  is  a  most  grateful  and  salutary  pro- 
tection. The  Scriptures  often  employ  the  word  as  here;  Is. 
30  :  2,  3  ;  32  :  2  ;  Num.  14:9;  Lam.  4  :  20.  A  preeminence 
or  excellence  of  knowledge  is  the  predicate  in  the  second  clause  ; 
and  so  I  have  translated.  It  is  put  first,  for  the  sake  of  empha- 
sis. '  That  wisdom,'  says  Coheleth,  '  which  preserves  life,  must 
be  regarded  as  an  excellent  knowledge,'  having  the  preeminence 
even  over  money ;  for  this,  although  it  may  and  does  at  times 
shield  us,  is  still  liable  to  be  lost,  for  it  is  exposed  to  robbery,  to 
accident,  and  to  ill  success  in  business,  etc. 

Ail  this  looks  back  to  the  case  of  demeanor  under  the  oppres- 
sion of  rulers,  and  is  designed  to  show  the  importance  of  acting 
discreetly,  that  our  safety  may  not  become  endangered.  Wisdom 
here  is  truly  a  yhrY1.. 

(13)  Consider  the  work  of  God;  who  can  make  straight  that  which  lie 
hath  made  crooked  ? 


250  ECCLESIASTLS    VII.   11. 

That  is,  in  all  these  troubles  and  perplexities,  remember  that 
there  is  an  overruling  Providence,  whose  arrangements  cannot 
be  opposed  or  disturbed.  When  the  will  of  God  is  ascertained, 
bow  to  it  in  quiet  and  silent  submission.  —  Cin?xn,  like  0eos  in 
Greek,  used  either  with  or  without  the  article.  Here  emphasis 
is  intended,  and  the  article  becomes  necessary.  —  is  (causal), 
stands  before  a  reason  for  considering  well  how  much  of  present 
trouble  results  from  the  unchangeable  ordinance  of  the  power 
above.  — in**,  Piel  with  suff.,  root  rflS  with  movable  1 . 

(14)  In  the  day  of  prosperity  be  joyful,  and  in  the  day  of  adversity  con- 
sider ;  moreover  God  hath  arranged  this  in  connection  with  that,  in  order 
that  man  should  not  discover  anything  which  will  be  after  him. 

Whatever  may  be  the  confusion  and  disorder  of  the  times, 
when  good  and  evil  alternate  and  are  fluctuating,  it  is  plain  that 
nothing  forbids  your  enjoyment  of  prosperity,  when  it  is  your 
lot ;  and  when  adversity  comes,  make  good  use  of  that  by  exer- 
cising sober  reflection  and  consideration.  —  siiiSt  —  afe ,  with  3 
essentiae;  see  on  bsa  in  the  verse  above.  Consider,  instead  of 
which  we  should  have  expected  "^2  STjh ,  be  sad,  as  the  opposite 
of  Z"J2.  But  fix")  gives  a  more  expressive  and  useful  counsel. 
Men  do  not  need  exhortation  to  sadness,  when  misfortunes  come 
upon  them.  God  has  arranged  these  alternations  in  such  a  way, 
and  so  entirely  are  they  under  his  own  control,  that  we  can  never 
predict  the  future  with  certainty.  We  know,  indeed,  that  alter- 
nations must  needs  take  place;  but  'how  and  when,  are  beyond 
our  ken.'  —  r'zvb ,  together  with,  or  in  connection  with,  —  rrfcs, 
arrange,  constitute,  a  frequent  meaning  of  this  word ;  see  Lex. 
r  tfW  ~v  (const  form  of  tt^a1?),  on  the  ground  that,  in  order 
thai  ( licit  merely  s<>  that,  as  many  translate).  The  sentiment 
plainly  is,  thai  God  has  so  arranged  the  alternations  of  good  and 
evil,  thai  no  man  can  know  the  future  with  certainty;  and  in  all 
this  he  has  a  design.  He  does  not  mean  to  admit  man  to  pry 
into  the  ><  i  r<  :  things  which  belong  to  him  alone. 


ECCLBSIASTK8    VII.  15.  2.31 

The  mass  of  commentators  are  content  with  this  view;  but 
Ilitzig,  ever  watchful  to  detect  and  bring  to  view  any  scepticism 
in  the  Hebrews,  finds  this  sentiment:  'To  the  intent  that  he  shall 
seek  for  nothing  after  death.  God  leaves  good  and  evil  to  alter- 
nate here,  in  order  that  nothing  may  be  expected  or  found  after 
death.'  He  adds :  "  This  sense  of  the  passage  interpreters  en 
masse  have  failed  to  discover."  But  it  seems  to  me  no  matter 
of  wonder  that  they  have  failed  to  see  what  was  not  to  be  seen. 
Hitzig  gets  his  view  by  a  Hinein-exegesiren,  and  not  by  a  Her* 
aus-exegesiren.  The  writer  has  said  again  and  again,  that  good 
and  evil  are  not  duly  rewarded  in  the  present  life.  His  greatest 
complaint  is,  that  they  are  not.  How,  then,  can  he  be  made  to 
say  now  that  good  and  evil  are  awarded  here,  and  are  so  dis- 
pensed that  no  further  award  is  to  be  expected  ? 

(15)  All  this  have  I  considered  in  the  days  of  my  vain  efforts ;  there  is  a 
righteous  man  who  peris heth  through  his  righteousness ;  and  there  is  a 
wicked  man  who  prolongeth  [his  days]  by  reason  of  his  wickedness. 

Vsn-ritf ,  lit.  the  all,  but  the  article  makes  V3  refer  to  something 
which  precedes,  viz.,  what  is  contained  in  vs.  13,  14,  all  this. 
He  means  to  say  that  the  subject  of  the  mysterious  alternations 
of  good  and  evil  he  has  often  considered  in  the  days  of  his  ban, 
i.  e.j  of  his  vain  efforts  in  trying  to  solve  the  problem.  As  to 
the  mere  fact  of  being  vanity,  personally  considered,  i.  e.->  a  frail 
dying  creature,  that  was  as  true  when  this  was  uttered  as  it  ever 
had  been.  This  was  not  something  which  had  passed,  and  there- 
fore this  was  not  the  kind  of  vanity  meant  in  the  text.  Brt 
there  is  a  new  attitude  in  which  the  subject  maybe  placed,  which 
will  show  more  fully  still  that  there  is  a  mystery  respecting  the 
dispensation  of  good  and  evil,  which  is  more  perplexing  than 
their  mere  alternations.  '  Right  fails,  and  wrong  prospers.' 
The  righteous  sometimes  perish  (instead  of  receiving  a  reward) 
for  the  very  reason  that  they  are  righteous ;  while  the  wicked 
enjoy  the  benefits  promised  to  the  righteous,  by  means  of  their 


252  ECCLF.SIASTES    VII.  1C,  17. 

wickedness,  irtf^S.  The  wicked  often  prolong  their  days  by  the 
acquisition  of  various  comforts  and  means  of  promoting  health, 
through  gains  wickedly  obtained;  or  it  may  be  that  they  escape 
penal  justice  by  means  of  bribery.  How  Providence  could 
permit  this,  was  a  great  mystery,  and  one  which  Coheleth  thinks 
has  not  been  uncovered.  Of  some  attempts  to  account  for  this 
he  has  indeed  a  cognizance  ;  or  it  may  be  that  he  tells  us  what 
once  passed  in  his  own  mind,  in  the  days  of  his  vanity.  As  to 
the  fact,  '•'  persecution  for  righteousness'  sake  "  has  always  existed 
in  some  shape;  so  that  a  man  may  perish  "Ip'i^a,  by  or  through 
his  righteousness,  not  merely  in  it.  After  Tp"^."?  the  word  D*^ 
is  implied ;  for  the  full  expression  of  this  see  8:13;  Deut.  4:26, 
40  ;  5  :  30  ;  Josh.  24  :  31  ;  Prov.  8:16,  al.  For  the  elliptical 
expression  as  here,  see  Prov.  28  :  2.  Long  life  is  everywhere 
counted  among  the  Hebrews  as  a  blessing,  Ex.  20  :  12  ;  Deut. 
1 1  :  9,  21  ;  Is.  65  :  20  ;  Ps.  49  :  10  ;  Prov.  28  :  16,  al. 

(16)  Be  not  righteous  over  much,  nor  display  thyself  as  being  wise  ;  why 
Bhouldest  thou  make  thyself  to  be  forsaken  1 

In  other  words,  a  course  too  exact,  rigid,  and  severe,  occasions 
the  misfortunes  of  the  righteous.  They  overdo.  And  so  also 
they  shoiu  themselves  as  wise,  or  demean  themselves  as  claiming  to 
be  wise,  csnrn  Ilith.,  i.  e.,  wiser  than  others ;  and  so,  by  carry- 
ing these  things  to  excess,  they  cause  themselves  to  be  deserted 
or  forsaken,  trailSFl,  Ilithp.  for  traidnfi,  make  thyself  desolate  or 
lonely.  Like  Job  in  16:7  (on  which  passage  the  writer  perhaps 
had  his  eye),  friends  forsake  him,  and  leave  him  to  his  fancied 
superior  sanctity  and  wisdom.  But  the  verse  above  speaks  of 
ri 'siting.  This  also  may  be  involved  in  tKailEFi,  or  at  least 
the  consequence  of  it.  —  nrii  is  evidently  adverbial  here  (see  in 
v.  1 1),  and  corresponds  to  ruin  in  the  first  clause.  The  next 
continues  the  comparison. 

(17)  Benot  wicked  overmuch,  and  be  not  foolish;  why  shouldest  thou 
die  before  ti<y  time? 


ECCLESIASTES    VII.    18.  253 

That  is,  great  wickedness  only  leads  to  destruction,  and  makes 
a  man  si  fool.  All  men  sin  some,  and  sometimes  act  unwisely; 
but  it  is  only  when  they  become  abandoned,  and  turn  fools,  that 
they  perish.  Excess  in  both  cases  destroys.  Those  who  are 
righteous  in  a  moderate  measure,  may  remain  safe ;  and  so  with 
the  wicked  who  observe  moderation.  — rp\'j  fi&S,  lit.  in  thy  not 
time,  i.  e.,  untimely. 

This  17th  verse  evidently  does  not  correspond  exactly  with 
the  last  clause  of  v.  15,  prolong 'eth  his  days  by  wickedness.  It 
merely  maintains  that  excessive  wickedness  destroys  instead  of 
preserving.  But  by  implication  it  admits  that  wickedness  short 
of  this  may  consist  with  prolongation  of  days.  In  other  words, 
the  statement  in  v.  15  is  limited  and  softened  down  by  vs.  16, 17; 
for  it  is  here  suggested  that  only  excess  in  righteousness  causes 
the  mischief  complained  of,  and  that  prosperity  in  wickedness 
cannot  truly  be  affirmed  of  such  as  are  very  wicked.  Verses  16 
and  17  do  not  directly  deny  or  contradict  v.  15,  but  they  qualify 
^ind  diminish  the  force  of  its  expressions.  The  inference  is,  that 
the  objector  in  this  case  (no  matter  whether  the  objection  comes 
from  Coheleth's  own  deliberating  mind,  or  is  suggested  by  an- 
other) —  the  objector  intends  to  say,  that  the  proposition  of  v.  15 
cannot  be  admitted  in  its  full  latitude.  There  is  evidently  an 
attempt  to  diminish  the  force  of  the  objection  against  the  mystery 
of  providential  arrangements.  What  is  said  in  v.  15,  is  assumed 
as  applicable  only  to  cases  of  excess  in  righteousness,  or  to  a  low 
or  small  degree  of  sin. 

Nor  has  the  objector  yet  done.  He  goes  on  to  show  the  im- 
portance of  his  suggestion  in  the  following  verse  : 

(18)  It  is  good  that  thou  shouldest  keep  hold  of  this,  and  also  not  let  go 
thy  hand  from  that;  for  he  who  fears  God  will  make  his  way  with  all  of 
them. 

Keep  hold  of  this,  refers  to  the  precept  he  had  given  respecting 
excess  in  righteousness  ;  not  let  go  thy  hand  from  that,  means  that 

22 


254  ECCLESIASTES    VI  I.   10. 

lie  should  also  observe  due  caution  in  regard  to  excess  of  wick- 
edness. By  a  wary  observance  of  these  cautions,  he  will  be  safe. 
And  he  id  to  fears  God,  i.  e.,  fears  to  incur  his  displeasure,  will 
go  along  the  path  of  life  associating  these  maxims  with  all  his 
steps,  so  as  not  to  depart  from  them.  It  seems  plain  to  me  that 
this  verse  comes  from  the  same  quarter  as  the  last  two  verses 
which  precede  it.  It  is  an  attempted  confirmation  of  what  is 
there  said.  —  rtra  is  put  at  the  head  of  the  second  clause,  in 
order  to  make  the  contrast  with  Sita  more  striking.  —  JT3P),  Hiph. 
apoc.  of  Ilia ;  see  Lex.  B.  Will  make  his  ivay  with  both,  usually 
rendered :  Will  escape  both.  But  how  can  K3£  be  made  to  gov- 
ern the  Ace.  ?  It  is  an  intransitive  verb  in  Kal ;  and  the  cases 
appealed  to  in  Gen.  44  :  4 ;  Ex.  9  :  29,  33,  etc.,  are  not  parallel 
with  the  present.  With  that  sense  it  would  be  followed  by  ",^, 
from;  see  Jer.  11  :  11.  As  the  phrase  now  stands,  it  desig- 
nates the  idea  that  he  who  will  go  safely  so  as  to  avoid  the 
divine  displeasure,  will  make  his  way  as  it  were  in  company 
with  both  the  cautions  given,  or  (in  other  words)  he  will  take 
them  along  writh  him.  These  cautions  are  expressed  by  ribs,  all 
of  them,  viz.,  all  of  the  things  he  had  just  said.  In  the  other 
mode  of  rendering,  the  meaning  of  all  of  them  must  be,  all  of 
the  disasters.  The  sense  would  be  well  enough,  if  we  could 
make  K2£  govern  an  Ace.  As  we  cannot,  we  must  adopt  the 
other  method;  which  Ilitzig  does  in  his  Coram. 

(l!i)  "Wisdom  strengthens  a  wise  man  more  than  ten  chieftains  who  are  in 

a  city. 

In  v.  12  above  he  has  said  of  wisdom,  that  it  is  a  defence.  It 
cannot  indeed  overleap  the  bounds  which  Providence  has  set  to 
the  achievements  of  num.  but  it  can  do  more  than  riches,  and  lie 

ailable  where  they  are  not.  The  intermediate  matter  (vs. 
15 — 18)  ia  :i  partial  digression  from  his  immediate  object,  which 
i-  to  sel  forth  the  various  advantages  connected  with  wisdom  or 
sagacity.     A  seeming  exception  to  its  claims  is,  that  the  right- 


ECGLESIASTES    Til.  20.  255 

eon?  and  the  wicked  sometimes  take  each  other's  place  in  the 
award  that  follows  their  actions.  After  suggestions  in  the  way 
of  opposition,  that  some  abatement  must  be  made  from  this 
ment,  or  some  qualification  of  its  terms,  and  an  assertion  that 
shunning  all  excesses  will  keep  every  man  in  safety,  the  writer 
resumes  the  subject  of  wisdom,  in  the  verse  before  us.  It  will 
be  seen,  of  course,  that  he  does  not  immediately  answer  or  oppose 
the  suggestions  that  had  been  made,  although  it  would  seem, 
by  the  sequel,  that  he  does  not  wholly  accede  to  the  views  ad- 
vanced in  those  suggestions.  For  the  present,  he  has  further  to 
say  of  'wisdom  that  in  the  way  of  protection  it  often  answers 
purposes  that  power  or  force  cannot  answer ;  yea,  which  even 
piety  itself  cannot ;  since  all  men,  even  good  ones,  commit  more 
or  less  of  sin,  and  then  they  are  exposed  to  its  consequences, 
ti'n,  not  is  strong,  but  actively  here,  viz.,  gives  strength,  makes 
strong,  or  strengthens.  The  \  before  the  object  marks  the  direc- 
tion, and  so  conveys  the  sense  of  imparting  to.  The  vowel 
(Seghol)  belongs  to  the  suppressed  article.  —  fntesjo,  noun  of 
number  in  the  abs.  state,  see  Parad.  in  §  95  ;  also,  for  construc- 
tion with  the  abs.  noun  that  follows,  consult  §  118,  1,  b,  and 
No.  2.  —  EPaiJbiB,  here  chieftains  of  troops,  as  the  nature  of  the 
case  demands,  for  what  is  said  refers  to  defence.  —  B^lbd  is  one 
who  rides  in  any  way.  Saltan  is  an  Arabic  form  from  the  root 
of  this  same  word.  The  chieftains  include  by  implication  the 
forces  which  they  lead.  The  noun  of  number  is  Nom.  sing,  in 
form,  but  a  collective  plur. ;  see  Gramm.  §  1)5. —  fift,  are,  §  124,  3. 
What  he  means  is,  that  there  are  times  when  sagacity  is  of  more 
avail  than  force  of  arms ;  for  the  latter  can  be  repelled  by  like 
force,  while  the  former  makes  calculations  for  safety,  which 
cannot  always  be  anticipated  or  adequately  met.  Ten  is  not 
here  designed  to  mean  just  this  number;  but  (as  often  else- 
where) for  the  designation  of  a  considerable  number. 

(20)  For  there  is  not  a  just  man  on  earth,  who  clocth  good,  and  sinneth 
not. 


2j6  ecclesiastes   VII.  20. 

Apparently  the  sentence  is  causal,  for  it  is  preceded  by  "3. 
But  what  reason  is  contained  in  it  to  establish  the  validity  of 
the  preceding  remark?  A  question  that  has  much  perplexed 
the  commentator?,  who  have  answered  it  very  variously.  The 
true  exegesis  of  it,  as  it  seems  to  me,  has  already  been  hinted  in 
the  remarks  on  the  preceding  verse.  Apparently  it  amounts  to 
this :  After  saying  that  wisdom  is  a  protection  more  to  be  relied 
on  than  wealth,  and  even  more  than  military  force,  he  now 
suggests  that  even  riglrfeousness  may  sometimes  fail  its  possessor 
as  a  means  of  preservation,  because  it  is  not  constant  and  uni- 
form, but  at  times  is  interrupted  in  all  men  by  sin ;  when,  of 
course,  its  protective  power  for  a  time  must  cease.  *  If  *»3  be 
rendered  truly,  surely,  the  verse  is  then  made  into  an  apothegm, 
true  indeed,  but  irrelevant.  If  we  interpret  it  as  just  proposed, 
the  relevancy  of  it  at  least  seems  to  be  discernible. 

It  is  possible  that  Heiligs.  may  be  in  the  right,  wrho  makes  a 
transition  here  in  the  discourse,  and  supposes  the  writer  now  to 
be  intent  on  chastising  the  spirit  of  those  who  are  prone  to  find 
mult  with  others,  by  suggesting  to  them  that  they  should  keep 
in  view  the  fact  that  no  one  is  perfect,  and  therefore  should  be 
kind  and  candid.  Perhaps  the  next  verse  favors  this,  which,  it 
cannot  well  be  doubted,  has  a  reference  to  rulers,  i.  e.,  to  the 
reports  of  men  respecting  them.  But  as  there  is  no  particle  at 
the  beginning  of  the  verse  which  indicates  a  new  turn  of  the 
subject,  but  is  indicative  merely  of  the  reason  for  what  has  been 
said,  and  as  the  sentiment  adopted  by  Heiligs.  appears  somewhat 
abrupt  without  some  indication  of  transition,  the  former  method, 
defended  by  Ilitzig,  seems  rather  preferable.  It  must  be  owned, 
however,  that  some  obscurity  rests  on  the  exact  aim  of  the 
author  here.  But  the  whole  chapter  has  more  of  the  apotheg- 
matic  character  than  usual. 

Were  it  not  for  the  h3,  we  might  give  the  verse  another  turn. 

In  vs.  7 — 12  above  he  has  introduced  the  subject  of  oppressive 

.  and  cautioned  against  dealing  hastily  or  haughtily 


ECCLESIA.STES    VII.  21.  257 

with  tlicm.  lie  has  commended  the  wisdom  which  enables  one 
to  steer  safely  without  provoking  them,  or  without  coming  into 
offensive  contact  with  them.  If  now  he  be  viewed  here  (in  v. 
20)  as  intending  to  soften  down  the  irritated  feelings  of  the 
oppressed  against  their  rulers,  by  suggesting  that  all  men,  even 
the  best,  are  liable  to  sin,  and  that  therefore  we  should  not  be 
too  severe  in  our  judgment  of  them  ;  then  would  the  verse  be  a 
good  preparative  for  what  follows,  the  design  of  which  is  to  show 
that  hasty  and  exaggerated  or  slanderous  reports  should  not  be 
readily  admitted  and  believed.  This  would  add  to  the  cautions 
already  given  above  ;  and  with  this  the  subject  is  here  dismissed. 
The  reader  can  choose  for  himself.  The  ^3  in  question  seems  to 
stand  in  my  way  with  respect  to  adopting  the  view  last  sug- 
gested ;  although  I  do  not  think  it  an  insuperable  obstacle,  be- 
cause it  sometimes  stands  at  the  head  of  a  new  discourse  (see 
Is.  15:1;  8:23;  Job  28:1),  and  then  means  verily,  surely, 
immo;  see  on  4:16. 

(21)  Moreover,  give  not  thy  mind  to  all  the  words  which  are  uttered,  in 
order  that  thou  mayest  not  hear  thy  servant  cursing  thee. 

That  is,  listen  not  to  tale-bearers  and  slanderers.  Magistrates 
are  specially  exposed  to  assaults  in  this  way.  But  if  you  indulge 
the  disposition  to  hear  such  things,  you  who  are  a  master  may 
be  very  likely  to  hear  them  from  your  servants,  who  stand  in  a 
relation  to  you  like  that  in  which  you  stand  to  your  rulers.  Men 
in  such  a  relation  are  apt  to  be  hardly  judged  and  talked  about, 
as  experience  shows.  This  is  the  reason  why  servants  are  here 
mentioned  as  examples  for  warning.  They  are  often  prone  to 
tattle  and  to  find  fault  with  their  master ;  and  such  is  the  case  of 
others  in  respect  to  their  civil  rulers,  who  exact  tribute  of  them. 
Now,  as  you  dislike  such  slander  against  yourself,  and  often  feel 
that  it  is  groundless  and  wanton,  so  may  your  civil  masters  feel 
peet  to  their  detractors.  —  ■hsn'?  (in  pause)  is  3d  Plur. 
impers.,  there  being  no  subject  expressed.     Of  course  it  may  be 

22* 


258  ECCLESIASTES    VII.  22,  23. 

translated  as  virtually  a,  passive  verb,  and  so  I  have  rendered  it; 
§  134,  2.  Give  not  thy  mind  means,  '  Do  not  deem  it  an  object 
worthy  of  serious  attention,  nor  one  that  ought  to  occupy  the 
mind.'  —  idx,  that,  so  that.  —  *l¥?12»j  rart-  ^ielJ  witn  suff> ; 
Dagh.  omitted  in  the  first  b,  as  oftentimes,  §  20,  3,  b.  —  ^-,  suff. 
in  pause ;  see  p.  288,  Par.  col.  A. 

(22)  For  thine  own  heart  also  knowcth  many  times  when  even  thou  thy- 
self hast  cursed  others. 

As  a  proof  or  ground  of  what  he  had  just  said,  lie  now  appeals 
to  the  experience  of  the  individual  addressed.  He  suggests  that 
he  himself  must  be  sensible  that  he  has  exercised  the  temper 
which  would  lead  him  to  curse  others ;  and  why  may  he  not 
expect  the  like  from  them?  There  is  nothing  strange  in  it. 
D^SS,  fern,  with  a  masc.  form,  as  nia'n  shows,  §  105,  4.  It  means 
here  cases,  or  what  we  usually  call  instances;  and  it  is  in  the 
Ace.  governed  by  yij .  So  Hitzig.  —  QK  =  finx ,  as  the  Qeri 
shows ;  see  in  Neb.  9:6;  Ps.  6  :  4  al.  Such  being  the  prone- 
ness  of  human  nature  to  think  and  speak  ill  of  superiors,  one 
needs  to  be  well  guarded  against  this  vice. 

(23)  All  this  have  I  tried  by  wisdom.  I  have  said  :  Let  me  become  wise 
now  ;  but  it  was  far  from  me. 

He  means  to  say  that  he  had  made  a  discerning  and  sagacious 
trial  of  the  much  talked-of  wisdom.  He  had  applied  practical 
wisdom  in  order  to  search  out  and  investigate  the  true  nature 
and  essence  of  wisdom;  for  this  seems  to  be  the  object  now  be- 
fore as.  Already  has  he  told  what  practical  wisdom  achieves. 
But  now  he  wishes  to  go  deeper,  to  inquire  into  and  search  out 
its  real  nature  and  essence.  —  rT03fl»,  Imperf.  hortative,  §  48, 
8,  with  parag.  n-.  —  trn,  this  thing,  viz.,  the  becoming  wise, 
fem.  for  neuter,  as  usual.  Far  from  me,  i.  e.,  out  of  his  reach, 
ild  not  attain  to  it.  Viewed  in  the  light  in  which  it  is  now 
:.  this  verse  La  not  a  contradiction  of  the  asserted  value  of 


ECCLESIASTES    VII.  21,25.  259 

wisdom,  already  made  in  various  ways.  It  is  designed  to  show- 
that  beyond  the  point  of  that  value,  i.  e.,  beyond  its  practical 
effects,  he  could  not  successfully  pursue  inquiries  so  as  to  discover 
its  real  nature  or  essence.  The  next  verse  shows  how  fully  he 
was  persuaded  of  this. 

(24)  That  which  is  far  off  and  very  deep  —  who  can  find  it  out  1 

Not  with  Herzf. :  far  off  remains,  what  was  far  off;  nor  with 
Ewald  :  far  off — what  is  it?  nor  with  Rosenm. :  that  is  far  off 
which  before  ivas  present  (?)  — !-nn£rrra,  that  which  is.  The 
predicate  pirn  is  placed  first  for  the  sake  of  emphasis.  —  pias  is 
made  emphatic  by  repetition,  §  100,  4.  —  *I3-  verbal  suff.  The 
wrhole  hangs  on  the  iir^m  of  v.  23.  The  gender  of  the  adjec- 
tives is  changed  in  v.  24,  because  the  proposition  there  assumes 
a  more  generic  form.  Indeed,  it  appears  like  a  common  collo- 
quial apothegm ;  and  here  it  is  cited  probably  in  the  way  that 
accords  with  its  usual  popular  form.  Sentiment:  'What  I 
sought  was  exceedingly  beyond  my  power  to  attain.' 

But  although  he  discovered  thus  much,  as  to  the  way  in  which 
he  had  been  investigating,  yet  he  did  not  wholly  abandon  the 
pursuit.  He  tried  the  matter  once  more  in  the  wray  of  examin- 
ing the  opposite  or  antithesis  of  wisdom,  in  order  that  he  might 
thus,  i.  e.,  in  the  way  of  antithetical  comparison,  discover  some- 
thing more  of  the  true  nature  of  that  which  he  wras  investigat- 


es) I  turned  myself,  and  my  purpose  was  to  acquire  knowledge  and  to 
investigate,  even  to  seek  out  wisdom  and  intelligence,  and  to  know  wicked- 
ness as  folly,  and  folly  as  madness. 

*2b*\  has  been  an  offendiculum  criticorum  here.  Knobel, 
Heiligs.,  and  even  Hitzig,  with  others,  make  it  the  instrumental 
Ace,  and  translate  :  with  my  mind,  as  if  it  were  *>a!?a  (as  a  num- 
ber of  Codices  have  it).  But  lab1]  cannot  be  here  translated  with 
or  by  my  mind.     If  this  were  the  meaning,  the  1  must  of  course 


200  1  CCLESIASTES    VII.  25. 

be  omitted,  and  *»ai  be  taken  as  the  Ace.  of  manner  or  instru- 
ment (116,  o)  =  inteUigenter.  But  as  the  text  is,  *zb  must  be 
the  subject  of  the  clause;  the  copula  (rnn  or  X*tn)  is  implied, 
and  the  Infinitives  (nominascent)  that  follow  are  the  complement 
or  predicate.  That  sb  may  mean  desire,  purpose,  wish,  admits 
of  no  doubt ;  see  Lex.  nnb ,  d.  —  fel  IB^SI  forms  a  new  clause, 
to  distinguish  which  the  b  before  the  Inf.  is  omitted.  The  clause 
is  epexegetical  and  supplementary,  inasmuch  as  the  first  clause 
says  nothing  more  than  that  he  addressed  himself  to  acquiring 
knowledge  and  investigating,  but  without  saying  what  it  was 
which  he  investigated  ;  while  the  second  clause  tells  us  what  the 
objects  of  inquiry  were,  and  D£2  sums  up  and  comprises  the 
meaning  of  the  two  preceding  verbs.  Hitz.  puts  rr^b  and  linb 
in  the  Ace.  after  ttJjsa ,  and  of  course  translates  thus :  And  with 
my  mind  to  seek  to  know  and  to  investigate.  The  sense  in  itself 
is  well  enough,  but  one  of  the  two  Vafs  must  be  ejected  in  this 
case  from  the  text,  either  that  before  iab]  or  else  that  before 
lBjsja.  It  is  unnecessary  and  inexpedient  to  do  this.  Heiligs. 
moves  on  without  the  least  notice  of  any  difficulty  in  the  text, 
and  .-ays  nothing  of  the  *[  in  question.  Knobel  recognizes  it,  but 
ejects  the  first  1  sans  ceremonie.  None  of  these  plans  admit  and 
explain  the  text  as  it  is.  But  surely  there  is  no  necessity  of 
changing  it,  as  the  version  above  shows.  In  the  case  of  vJgai,  I 
have  rendered  *i  by  even  (§  152,  B.  2),  which  is  the  proper 
translation  before  an  epexegetical  clause  designed  rather  to 
explain  than  to  add  anything  new.  —  "pS'rn  is  another  term  for 
wisdom,  designating  it  as  meditating  or  excogitating.  Both 
terms  increase  the  intensity  of  expression  =  wisdom  in  the 
highest  sense.  It  is  the  nature  of  this  which  he  is  now  seeling 
out.  —  fcos  -~~!,  not  the  wickedness  of  folly  (for  this  would  be 

:"'i:~),  but  wickedness  as  folly.  And  folly  as  madness,  the 
same  ion  as  before,  the  latter  noun  having  no  article 

and  no  1,  and   thus  Bhowing  that  it    is   subordinate  and  explana- 

and  not  a  i  const,  noun  with  a  Genitive  after  it.     In 


ECCLESIASTIC     VII.  25.  201 

ruba&rr,  the  article  merely  points  to  the  preceding  ^SO,  and  is 
a=  much  as  to  say:  that  folly .     80  that  from  both  clauses  we 

obtain  the  sentiment  that  wickedness  is  both  folly  and  madness; 
which  surely  is  a  sound  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures.  The  word 
mbsD  is  merely  a  variation  inform  (not  in  meaning)  from  the 
preceding  bro.  Thus  much  for  the  grammatical  part  of  our 
investigation. 

The  occasion  of  what  is  here  said  seems  to  have  been  taken 
from  v.  17 :  Be  not  ivicked  overmuch,  nor  he  thou  foolish.  It 
seems  to  be  there  assumed  that  it  is  only  a  high  degree  of  wick- 
edness (Minn)  which  makes  a  man  foolish ;  that  is,  he  may  be 
somewhat  wicked,  and  yet  be  wise.  Coheleth  is  not  satisfied 
with  such  a  view  of  the  subject,  although  the  sentiment  which 
it  conveys  is  designed  to  apologize  or  account  for  the  mysterious 
providence  described  in  v.  15.  He  thinks  all  wickedness  to  be 
folly,  and  that  this  folly  is,  moreover,  a  lack  of  reason,  or  mad- 
ness. He  had  sought  to  discover  the  nature  of  true  wisdom 
contemplated  by  itself;  but  this  was  far  away  and  deep.  He 
now  makes  another  effort ;  and  this  is,  to  seek  out  what  wisdom 
is  by  searching  into  its  opposite  or  antithesis,  viz.,  folly.  This  is 
equivalent  to  wickedness,  and  also  to  madness.  True  wisdom 
stands  opposed  to  all  three.  All  sin,  then,  in  his  view  is  folly ; 
and  not  merely  an  excess  of  wickedness  is  sin,  but  every  degree 
of  it.  Consequently,  to  be  ivise  is  to  refrain  from  all  sin ;  for 
the  commission  of  it,  in  any  manner  or  measure,  is  folly  and 
wickedness  so  far  as  it  goes. 

What  follows  I  regard  as  designed  to  exhibit  how  widely  sin 
and  folly  are  diffused  abroad.  Examples  on  all  sides  are  before 
him,  and  he  can  easily  discover  what  folly  is  by  observing  and 
examining  these  examples.  And  if  folly  can  be  fully  seen,  then 
its  opposite,  viz.,  wisdom,  may  of  course  be  better  understood. 
Withal,  the  reader  should  compare  the  verse  before  us  with  1:17 
and  2  :  12 — 15,  where  he  speaks  more  despairingly  of  acquiring 
an  adequate  knowledge,  and  thinks  it  to  be  ry,n  'y.v. 


ECCLESIASTES    VII.  26. 

(26)  And  I  found  more  bitter  than  death  the  woman  whoso  heart  is  nets 
and  snares,  whose  hands  arc  chains  ;  he  who  is  pleasing  to  God  shall  he  de- 
livered from  her,  but  the  sinner  shall  be  caught  by  her. 

This  is  trul)'  oriental  in  its  conception.  Women,  it  seem?,  are 
the  examples  most  in  point  of  the  folly  in  question.  The  low 
estimate  in  which  females  are  held  throughout  the  east,  even 
down  to  the  present  day,  never  associating  nor  even  eating  with 
men,  being  moreover  without  education  or  any  true  dignity  of 
character,  and  reckoned  as  mere  menial  instruments  of  man's 
pleasure,  leads  of  course  to  degradation  and  depravation  of  char- 
Here,  then,  Coheleth  seeks  his  most  striking  examples 
of  folly,  either  in  its  mental  or  moral  sense.  Plow  different  is 
the  case  in  those  countries  on  which  the  light  of  the  gospel  has 
dawned !  Were  we  nowr  to  make  the  same  inquest  which  he 
did,  we  should  first  betake  ourselves  to  the  male  rather  than  the 
female  sex,  in  order  to  light  upon  those  where  wickedness  more 
fully  abounds.  So  much  has  Christianity  done  for  women. 
But  still,  Coheleth's  proposition  cannot,  as  many  suppose,  be  a 
general,  or  rather  a  universal,  one  in  respect  to  the  sex.  Plainly, 
he  speaks  only  of  those  women  who  employ  their  arts  and  charms 
to  inveigle  paramours.  lie  likens  these  arts  to  nets  and  toils, 
which  inclose  and  secure  their  prey ;  and  their  clinging  hands 
he  calls  chains,  because  they  hold  fast  the  victim.  Highly 
favored  of  God  is  the  man  who  escapes  their  enticements,  and 
only  those  who  are  displeasing  in  his  sight,  /.  e.,  sinners,  will  be 
ensnared  by  them.  This  is  a  high  although  not  directly  designed 
encomium  on  chastity  in  men;  and  it  shows  that  the  writer  was 
ii"  mere  voluptuary.  What  he  says  of  women  bearing  the  char- 
acter here  described,  we  may  fully  accede  to,  even  at  the  present 
time  ;  and  among  them  wc  might  say  as  he  afterwards  says,  that 
there  is  not  one  in  a  thou -and,  i.  e.,  one  example  of  wisdom  in 
its  inn-  sen  e.  —  niSXin-riX,  Ace.  after  arte;  which  last  word  is 
pointed,  as  to  ii>  final  vowel,  in  the  Syriac  fashion,  instead  of 
the  usual  Tseri ;  see  §  74,  VI.  n.  21,  a.     So  KBirt,  in  this 


ECCLESIASTES    VII.  27.  20:3 

same  verse,  is  written  N»in  in  8  :  12  5  0  :  18.  There  is  some 
difficulty  in  the  construction  of  Js'rr^rx  here  The  mosl  facile 
method  of  rendering  the  clause  is  to  put  together  i^zb  .  .  .  ^uttjt, 
and  translate :  ivhose  heart.  The  only  objection  to  this  is  that 
made  by  llitzig,  viz.,  that  if  ftzh  were  the  subject  or  Nom.  of 
the  clause,  then  the  fern,  ton  could  not  be  employed,  but  &tth 
must  be  inserted.  But  this  rests  simply  on  the  ground  that  -'? 
is  masc,  and  that  consequently  the  pronoun  must  be  of  the  same 
gender.  But  this  is  far  from  being  certain.  —  nb  makes  its  plur. 
hialb ;  which  Fuerst  says  (Conccrd.)  must  come  from  Sisb,  fern. 
But  why  ?  Are  there  not  many  nouns  of  comm.  gender  which 
have  a  masc.  form  for  their  singular;  e.  g.,  ©SI),  plur.  rvitzJB?,  a 
word  of  kindred  meaning  with  ib.  So  the  fuller  form  inb  has 
masc.  and  fern,  forms  both  in  the  plural,  indicating  a  common 
gender  of  the  singular.  Adopting  this  view  here  (Ges.  Lex. 
says  nothing  about  the  gender),  then  fc^H  is  in  due  order.  But 
it  is  a  mere  copula  here  =  is,  as  often  elsewhere  in  this  book. 
In  this  way  the  version  above  is  justified.  But  we  may  take 
another  way,  and  yet  arrive  at  a  like  conclusion.  We  may 
translate  thus :  who  is  nets  and  snares  as  to  her  heart,  i.  e.,  ih  is 
in  the  Ace.  of  the  manner  or  the  respect  in  wliich  she  is  snares, 
etc.  So  Herz. ;  although  he  prefers  making  K*<PJTIJX  the  Ace, 
and  rendering  it  thus  :  in  respect  to  whom.  —  Siia,  goodly,  pleas- 
ing. Caught  by  her,  refers  to  the  nets  and  snares.  The  hands 
arc  called  chains,  for  the  obvious  reason  that  they  are  employed 
in  fondling  and  embracing,  and  thus  bind  the  captive  paramour. 

(27)  Sec  !  this  have  I  found,  saith  Coheleth,  [adding]  one  to  another  in 
order  to  find  out  the  computation. 

i"tio  demands  special  attention  =  look  well  to  what  follows. 
I;  i  stronger  than  T\tn,ecce/  —  fit,  this,  viz.,  what  follows  in 
the  next  verse.  —  Ttrp  n-";x  is  in  all  probability  wrongly 
divided.  The  H  should  be  attached  to  nbtt'p,  as  it  is  in  12  :  8. 
Being  an  appelative,  it  may  take  the  article,  if  the  writer  plea  ie  . 


2C4  ECCLESIASTES    V  1 1 .  28. 

for  the  sake  of  emphasis  ;  and  being  used  as  a  proper  name,  the 
article  may  as  is  usual  be  omitted.  It  is  without  it  in  1 : 1, 2, 12  ; 
12  :  9,  10.  But  it  is  always  masc,  which  speaks  decidedly 
against  rrrott,  and  shows  that  the  verb  should  be  Sos. —  nns 
Mjxb  lit.  one  to  one,  without  anything  to  connect  or  govern  the 
phrase.  It  is  employed  adverbially  therefore  (like  our  one  hj 
one),  and  of  course  implies  before  it  a  verb  or  Part,  which  sig- 
nifies adding  or  joining,  e.  g.,  Db.  — Kbtfflb,  in  order  to  find, 
where  b  has  a  special  significance,  indicating  object  or  design. 
"pSttJri  speaks  for  itself  here,  by  reason  of  the  context.  It  means 
account,  reckoning,  or  computation.  This  he  has  disclosed  in 
the  next  verse. 

(28)  "What  my  soul  has  hitherto  sought,  and  yet  I  have  not  found  (one 
man  of  a  thousand  I  have  found),  but  a  woman  among  all  these  have  I  not 
found. 

My  soul  hath  sought,  intensive,  the  inner  man,  differing  how- 
ever from  /  only  in  intensity  of  expression.  —  httppa,  in  Piel, 
but  the  Dagh.  in  p  is  omitted,  because  of  the  vocal  Sheva  it 
would  make,  §  20,  3,  b.  A  rapid  or  abridged  enunciation  is  the 
object  of  such  omissions,  as  we  say  honor' d  for  honored.  In- 
stead of  saying  immediately  what  that  is  which  he  has  not  found, 
he  throws  in  the  cutting  or  ironical  remark,  in  the  way  of  paren- 
thesis, which  tells  us  what  he  has  found,  viz.,  one  man  of  a  thou- 
sand. Of  course  he  means  one  upright  man,  one  who  is  not  a 
fool.  But  a  woman,  1  adversative,  §  152,  B.  1,  b.  Lex.  1  2. 
Among  all  these,  not  among  all  these  thousand  men,  for  there  of 
Course  In'  would  not  look  for  the  woman  in  question,  but  (Duong 
all  this  number,  or  such  a  number,  viz.,  among  a  thousand.  As 
"x  means  3.  just  man,  by  the  exigency  of  the  passage,  so  m*i:N: 
(=  n«;:x  fem.  of  Cbsi)  means  an  upright  woman.  Sentiment: 
'Just  men  are  exceedingly  scarce  ;  just  women  still  more  so.' 

[Thai    Coheletli  means  here  to  include  all  women,  and  to  puss  such  a 
nt  on  ;tll,  should  not  be  admitted  unless  his  language  obliges  us  to 


ECCLESIASTIC  S    VII.  2S.  205 

admit  it.  He  was  too  keen  an  observer  not  to  know  that  a  sweeping  prop- 
osition of  this  nature  cannot  be  true.  Certain  it  is  that  the  women  described 
in  v.  2G  are  such  as  are  given  to  amorous  dalliance.  And  among  these  it 
would  be  difficult  at  any  time  to  find  one  yood  woman.     Such  indeed  may 

become  penitent,  but  then  they  no  longer  belong  to  the  class  described. 
"Who,  then,  arc  the  thousand?  Specially  as  applied  to  men,  to  what  sort  or 
class  of  men  do  the  thousand  belong  1  Nothing  is  said  to  show  this.  Are 
they  then,  like  the  women,  of  that  class  which  arc  given  to  wantonness? 
If  so,  how  could  even  one  just  or  good  man  be  found  among  them  ?  This 
consideration  seems  to  compel  us  to  conclude  that  the  thousand  men  arc 
such  as  belong  to  ordinary  men.  We  say  in  like  cases:  'We  must  take 
them  as  they  come.'  But  still,  this  is  not  quite  so  certain  here  as  it  seems 
to  be.  In  the  East,  where  polygamy  and  concubinage  have  ever  been  prac- 
tised and  ever  stood  even  in  high  repute,  there  might  be  men  of  strong  sex- 
ual propensities,  who  still  did  not  violate  any  law  of  the  land,  or  even  law 
of  Moses,  in  indulging  them  somewhat  freely  ;  for  these  allowed  polygamy, 
and  did  not  condemn  except  indirectly,  the  practice  of  even  concubiiuuje.  It 
was  not,  therefore,  in  the  eyes  of  men  any  sacrifice  of  character  with  them, 
when  a  man  gratified  to  a  large  extent  his  sexual  propensities.  Some 
among  this  class  of  men  might  be  found  of  a  character  otherwise  substan- 
tially good.  But  very  different  was  the  condition  of  women.  They  must 
adhere  to  one  man,  and  could  not  have  intercourse  with  any  others  without 
a  total  loss  of  character  and  standing.  Among  these,  amorous  dalliance 
with  many  showed  an  unspeakable  debasement  of  character.  It  might  be, 
then,  a  matter  of  course  that  Cohelcth  could  find  no  one  of  a  good  char- 
acter among  them.  But  with  men,  to  whom  variety  of  paramours  was  no 
reproach  (I  speak  only  of  intercourse  with  wives  and  concubines  by  com- 
pact), his  experience,  or  the  result  of  his  investigations,  was  different.  I 
do  not  see  to  what  r^fc—Vs  can  refer,  except  to  the  women  described  in 
v.  26.  Certainly  they  are  the  class  who,  of  all  human  beings,  arc  the  most 
conspicuous  examples  of  folly;  and  for  examples  of  this  sort  Cohelcth  is 
seeking.  With  the  men,  too,  of  similar  propensities,  the  case  is  not  much 
better.  One  for  a  thousand  is  a  small  proportion  indeed.  Of  course,  how- 
ever, the  exact  number  makes  nothing  here  ;  for  the  real  idea  to  be  con- 
veyed is  simply  that  examples  of  righteousness  or  goodness  are  exceedingly 
rare  among  men  ;  and  among  women  of  a  particular  class  they  are  not  at 
all  to  be  found. 

Such,  then,  is  the  result  of  his  ttijPa  in  order  to  find  out  the  nature  and 
extent  of  folly.  Hitzig  seems  to  represent  him  as  expecting  to  find  at  least 
some  of  a  good  character  among  women,  and  as  being  disappointed  in  not 

23 


2GG  ECCLESIASTES    VII.   29. 

finding  them.  Says  he,  more  suo:  "Er  denkt  zu  fischen  und  krebst,"  i.  p., 
he  designs  to  catch  jxsh,  and  catches  crabs.  But,  levity  apart,  his  disappoint- 
ment could  not  be  great,  at  not  finding  them  among  the  class  of  women 
whom  he  describes.  He  was  grieved  rather  than  disappointed.  Grievous, 
too,  the  result  of  his  search  among  men  must  have  been.  Yet  if  wisdom  can 
be  better  known  by  comparing  its  opjiosite,  he  has  found  full  scope  in  this 
case  for  the  investigation  of  it,  fox  fully  in  abundance  did  he  meet  with. 

The  use  which  has  sometimes  been  made  of  vs.  26 — 28  (by  applying 
them  to  all  of  the  female  sex  in  the  way  of  reproach,  or  else  for  the  purpose 
of  showing  the  extravagance  and  paradoxical  character  of  the  book  before 
us)  seems  to  have  no  solid  ground.  The  writer  designs  to  say  that  when 
he  searched  after  folly  and  madness,  which  is  ivickedness  (^'?J,  he  found  the 
most  complete  exemplification  in  wanton  icomen,  and  that  he  met  with  little 
better  success  as  to  finding  any  that  were  good  and  just  among  men.  Some 
refer  the  thousand  women  to  Solomon's  seven  hundred  wives  and  three  hun- 
dred concubines,  1  K.  11  :  3.  But  then,  who  are  the  thousand  men  in  such 
a  case  \  Coheleth  might  indeed  look  to  the  harem  of  Solomon  with  full 
confidence  of  finding  folly  there  in  its  highest  measure,  specially  after  what 
is  told  us  concerning  his  heathen  women,  in  1  K.  11  :  1 — 8.  But  I  appre- 
hend the  use  of  thousand  in  this  case  is  only  in  the  common  way,  often  met 
with,  of  designating  a  large  and  indefinite  number. 

But  whence  this  overwhelming  and  universal  extension  of  folly  and  prof- 
ligacy ?  Is  this  one  of  the  arrangements  of  Providence,  so  often  spoken  of 
and  appealed  to  by  him  ?  This  is  a  question  which  he  meets  by  strong 
denial.] 

(29)  Sec  !  this  only  have  I  found,  that  God  made  man  upright  and  they 
have  sought  out  many  devices. 

In  the  ITeb.  the  order  in  the  first  clause  is  different  from  that 
of  the  version.  It  runs  thus  :  Only  see!  this  have  I  found,  rtxn 
being  a  parenthetic  interjection.  —  "inb  seems  to  be  placed  first 
here  in  the  Hebrew,  because  of  its  emphatic  meaning.  This 
refers  to  what  follows.  —  "^O1  £on(,ric,  mankind.  —  112?i  is 
truly  given  by  upright*  It  means  Justus,  probus^nteger.  They 
have  sought  out,  i.  e.,  men,  mankind  have,  etc  —  "-i?2,  without 
Dagh.  in  p;  Bee  above  on  v.  28.  —  r';:z'zr},  has  probably  a 
Dagh.  dirimens  or  rnjdi<>nic.  as  it  is  called  ;  Tor  nouns  of  this 
form  do  not  elsewhere  exhibit  such  a  Dagh.,  e.  </.,  rnrot,  etc 


ECCLESIASTES    VIII.   1-17.  2G7 

This  Dagh.  is  inserted  where  a  sharp  tone  of  the  preceding  syl- 
lable is  required,  so  that  Dagh.  causes  the  final  consonant  of  that 
syllable  to  be  more  distinctly  pronounced,  §  20,  2,  comp.  Ewald, 
Gramm.  §  92,  1,  c.  a.  Gesenius  (Lex.)  has  not  noticed  the 
Dagh.,  and  of  course  he  regarded  it  as  belonging  to  the  proper 
form  itself  of  the  word.  It  may  be  so,  but  from  analogy  it 
seems  hardly  probable.  Devices  means  of  course  here  evil 
devices,  artes  malae.  To  himself  alone  then  must  man  look  as 
the  source  of  all  his  follies  and  sins.  God  has  indeed  arranged 
all  things  and  made  them  what  iheyare;  and  one  of  these  things 
is,  that  men  should  be,  free  agents,  and  therefore  the  authors  of 
their  own  wickedness.  How  it  came  that  God  created  man 
peccable  is  a  question  which  Coheleth  does  not  bring  to  view, 
and  probably  one  on  which  he  did  not  speculate.  It  might  be 
well  for  the  church,  if  there  were  more  who  followed  his 
example. 


§12.  Men  sin  from  a  Variety  of  Causes;  Punishment  ivill  not 
always  be  delayed. 

Chap.  YIII.  1—17. 

[If  men  arc  not  made  sinners  by  their  Creator,  then  how  came  men  to 
sin  ?  This  question  naturally  arises  at  once  in  the  mind  of  the  reader. 
There  seem  to  be  three  reasons  given  in  the  sequel  why  they  fall  into  sin  ; 
(1)  Men  often  sin  through  fear  of  rulers,  by  obeying  their  unjust  commands 
when  they  know  them  to  be  so,  vs.  1 — 5.  (2)  They  sin  because  judgment 
and  punishment  are  delayed,  v.  11,  seq.  (3)  They  sin  because  oftentimes 
the  wicked  fare  as  well  as  the  just,  v.  14,  seq.  In  regard  to  this  last  matter 
there  is  undoubtedly  a  mystery  of  Providence  which  is  beyond  the  limits  of 
our  inquiries  o*r  knowledge,  vs.  16,  17. 

The  course  of  thought  more  minutely  investigated,  runs  thus  :  Truly 
wise  must  he  be  who  can  explain  difficult  matters,  viz.,  such  as  he  had  been 
stating  Rut  there  is  a  spurious  wisdom.  This  bids  unreserved  submission 
to  the  commands  of  rulers,  whether  they  be  good  or  evil.     Resistance,  it 


268  ECCLESIASTES    VIII.  1. 

suggests,  is  dangerous;  prudence,  therefore,  dissuades  from  it,  vs.  1 — 4. 
But  it  should  be  remembered  that  there  is  a  judgment-period  hanging  over 
all  evil-doers,  although  no  one  can  tell  when  it  will  take  place.  Death  is 
inevitable  to  all,  and  wickedness  cannot  rescue  the  sinner  from  it,  vs.  5 — 8. 
The  wicked  do  indeed  sometimes  reign  over  and  oppress  the  good.  Yet  still, 
they  will  die  and  be  buried  without  the  city,  and  will  be  soon  forgotten. 
Oppression  is  grievous.  But  although  judgment  slumbers,  and  men  grow 
bold  in  sin  because  of  this,  yet  let  the  wicked  do  wickedly  ever  so  long,  it 
shall  be  well  with  the  righteous  at  last,  and  to  the  wicked  it  shall  be  ill,  vs. 
9 — 13.  To  this  an  objection  immediately  presents  itself:  '  The  righteous 
share  the  doom  of  the  wicked,  and  to  the  wicked  falls  the  lot  of  the  right- 
eous.' There  is  nothing  left  then  for  the  latter  but  to  enjoy  all  they  can  of 
the  good  things  of  life,  vs.  14,  15.  But  in  procuring  the  means  of  this  en- 
joyment, much  and  grievous  toil  is  necessary,  so  that  it  is  of  little  account, 
v.  16.  This  the  writer  concedes  must  be  acknowledged  ;  and  he  allows  that 
we  can  offer  no  adequate  solution  of  the  mystery,  because  the  ways  of  Prov- 
idence are  beyond  our  knowledge,  v.  17.] 

(1)  VvTho  is  like  the  wise  man?  "Who  undcrstandefh  the  explanation  of 
a  saying  ?  The  wisdom  of  a  man  makcth  his  face  to  shine,  but  haughtiness 
disfigurcth  his  face. 

Ilitzig  thinks  that  the  first  clause  is  the  language  of  exultation 
over  the  discovery  he  had  made,  as  announced  in  the  preceding 
verse.  My  convictions  are  of  a  different  kind.  It  seems  to  me 
more  natural  to  suppose  that  the  difficulties  which  he  had  just 
been  stating,  and  had  left  unsolved,  moved  him  to  exclaim  as  he 
does.  The  questions  seem  to  amount  to  this :  '  Who,  like  a 
wise  man,  can  explain  the  difficulties  or  solve  the  questions  that 
ari-e  in  respect  to  wisdom?'  —  crnins,  usually  written  in  such 
,  as  B5JT3,  i.e., the  article  is  usually  dropped,  and  the  3  nor- 
mally takes  its  vowel,  §  35,  n.  2.  See  like  cases  of  this  punctu- 
ation in  the  later  books  (for  in  them  only,  almost  without  excep- 
tion, is  it  found),  e.  </.,  Ezek.  40  :  25  ;  47  :  22 ;  2  Cnron.  10:7; 
25  :  10  j  29  :  27  ;  Neh.  0:10;  12  :  38.  The  article  specifies  a 
particular  man,  viz.,  the  man  wise  enough  to  make  explanation. 
But  of  what?     Of  a  la'n ,  word,  maxim,  apothegm,  etc.     But 


ECCLESIASTES    VIII.  1.  2G0 

what  one  ?  I  sec  no  answer  to  this  but  one,  viz.,  the  Wl  exhib- 
ited in  the  sentence  or  apothegm  (such  I  take  it  to  be)  that  fol- 
lows. What  follows  this  apothegm  does  not  point  us  to  any 
explanation  of  preceding  difficulties,  namely,  those  in  Chap. 
VII.  Wisdom,  then,  will  be  shown  in  case  a  proper  explanation 
of  the  apothegm  can  be  made  out.  In  fact,  it  needs  some  wis- 
dom to  make  it  out,  as  the  endless  variety  of  opinions  about  the 
latter  clause  may  serve  to  show.  Maketh  his  face  to  shine,  i.  e., 
exhilarates  him,  makes  his  face  to  glow  with  pleasure  and  satis- 
faction ;  comp.  like  modes  of  expression  in  Num.  6  :  25 ;  Ps.  4:7; 
Job.  29  :  24.  —  Tiffl  VJ  has  been  long  debated.  The  Hebrews 
used  n^Q  vj  to  denote  a  man  of  impudent  face  or  of  stem  visage; 
also  D^DQ  Trn  to  signify :  he  made  up  an  impudent  face  (as  we  ex- 
press it).  — 15?  is  from  the  same  root  (ns)  and  might  have  the 
same  meaning  also,  if  this  word  and  the  next  after  it  constitute 
a  common  case  of  const,  and  Gen.  after  it.  But  this  we  cannot 
well  admit,  for  V3S  here  makes  a  relative  meaning  by  virtue  of 
the  suffix,  quite  different  from  that  which  D"OQ  alone  would  have. 
The  conclusion  then  must  be  that  T3  is  Norn,  and  subject,  and 
that  TD3  is  Ace.  governed  by  the  verb  which  follows.  Then  we 
take  the  two  last  clauses  as  constructed  alike,  and  we  have  a 
facile  sense :  The  wisdom  of  a  man  enlightens  his  face,  and 
haughtiness  or  impudence  disfigures  his  face.  —  K3©^,  as  pointed 
is  in  Pual  Imperf.,  the  X  being  used  for  it ;  for  so  in  2  K.  25  :  29, 
we  have  2rt2d  for  rt|tB,  and  in  Jer.  52  :  33  (the  same  expression). 
See  §  74,  vi.  n.  22.  The  Seventy  translate  /u^r/o-erai,  shall  be 
hated,  and  so  must  have  read  Kj&h  (in  Niph.  and  with  Sin  in- 
stead of  Shin).  The  true  pointing  seems  plainly  to  be  V&&i 
(Piel  of  <t:^),  with  a  for  n  as  above  stated.  The  comparison, 
or  rather  the  antithesis,  shows  that,  as  in  the  first  case  the  action 
of  the  verb  falls  on  T"OB ,  so  in  the  second  case  the  same  is  to  be 
said  as  to  the  second  v»M.  The  one  brightens,  the  other  disfig- 
ures. The  antithesis  is  not  indeed  closely  pressed,  for  then  we 
should  have  as  the  opposite  of  ^Kft,  the  verb  T^nn,  darkens. 

23* 


270  ECCLESIASTES    VIII     1. 

Nor  is  the  meaning,  as  found  above,  to  be  confined  to  a  physical 
change  of  the  countenance,  although  the  trope  is  borrowed  from 
this.  By  the  light  which  wisdom  sheds,  we  may  well  under- 
stand the  light  of  life;  comp.  Job  33  :  20 ;  Ps.  56  :  14;  comp. 
also  Ecc.  7  :  12.  On  the  other  hand  X$  (haughty  disregard), 
destroys,  see  v.  8  below.  So  in  Job  14  :  20,  i^:a  t\s&q  refers  to 
the  change  of  countenance  which  takes  place  after  death ;  and 
this  is  a  striking  illustration  of  our  text  from  a  writer  contem- 
porary, or  nearly  so,  with  Coheleth.  Sentiment :  '  Wisdom  pre- 
serves life,  or  imparts  the  light  of  life,  while  haughtiness  brings 
on  the  disfigurement  of  death.'  This  gives  to  the  whole  apo- 
thegm a  spirited  tone  and  significance  far  above  the  merely 
physical  sense.  But  it  needs,  as  the  author  intimates,  some 
understanding  in  order  to  make  out  a  ^KCQ.  It  has  indeed  a  kind 
of  esoteric  meaning,  while  the  literal  sense  is  merely  exoteric, 
and  would  present  no  mystery.  The  whole  conception  seems  to 
have  sprung  from  Job  16  :  15,  16,  q.  v. 

Knob,  renders :  the  gloom  (?)  of  his  countenance  is  changed. 
Ewald:  the  splendor  of  his  countenance  is  doubled,  making  the 
verb  from  fQXO,  to  repeat  (but  splendor  is  a  manufactured  sense 
for  i'S)  ;  Herzf. :  his  stem  visage  is  changed;  all  of  them  mis- 
taking the  relation  of  VJ  and  d^S.  Hitzig  adopts  the  meaning 
given  above,  and  to  him  I  owe  the  best  arguments  in  its  favor. 
He  has  not,  however,  sufficiently  indicated  the  bearing  of  the 
sentiment  on  what  precedes,  or  its  relation  to  it.  If  the  reader 
will  look  back  to  7  :  11  seq.,  19,  25  seq.,  he  will  readily  perceive 
how  often  and  earnestly  wisdom  is  discussed.  In  the  verse 
before  us,  at  the  close  of  these  discussions,  he  will  see  that  for 
wisdom  is  still  claimed  a  high  place,  like  to  that  asserted  in  7: 12, 
but  it  is  here  more  vividly  described.  As  the  opposite  of  this  is 
the  *"  (haughty  perseverance)  which  refuses  to  receive  and  obey 
instruction,  we  might  perhaps  expect  b»0  instead  of  VJ ,  since  it 
is  the  direct  antithesis  of  n-irn.  But  is  better  characterizes  the 
temper  of  mind  which  leads  men  "to  seek  out  many  evil  devices." 


ECCLESIASTICS     VIII.   2,3.  271 

To  all  this  the  writer  now  subjoins  the  counsel  which  a  timid 
and  counterfeit  wisdom  gives ;  for  this  by  contrast  sets  off  true 
wisdom  to  advantage.     Let  us  hear  this  worldly-wise  man  : 

(2)  I  keep  the  commandment  of  the  king;  and  so,  because  of  die  oath 
of  God. 

^B,  const,  of  fTB,  lit.  mouth,  then  what  the  mouth  utters,  com- 
mand; see  Lex.  —  "o^,  as  pointed,  is  an  Imper. ;  but  then  one 
must  of  course  supply  WEX  after  "OS.  With  Hitzig,  I  would 
point  the  word  Tob,  as  in  v.  5  below.  —  b?n,  the  1  I  have  ren- 
dered and  so=.and  Ikee])  it  because  of,  etc.,  §  152,  B.  23. —  rnw 
= propter,  when  bv  stands  before  it,  see  Lex.  The  oath  of  God, 
means  an  oath  in  which  God  is  named  and  called  to  witness  the 
transaction,  so  as  to  give  to  it  the  highest  and  most  solemn  sanc- 
tion. Hitzig  says  that  no  such  oaths  of  fealty  to  rulers  are  any- 
where mentioned  in  Hebrew  antiquity.  But  2  K.  11  :  17  men- 
tions a  TVh3$  (covenant)  between  the  king  and  people ;  could  this 
be  made  without  the  sanction  of  an  oath  ?  Ptolemy  Lagi  ex- 
acted an  oath  from  the  vassal  Jews,  Jos.  Arch.  XII.  1.  Oaths, 
we  know,  were  very  common  among  the  Jews  when  great  and 
solemn  transactions  were  engaged  in ;  see  Gen.  24  :  2,  3,  comp. 
Gen.  47  :  29 ;  1  Sam.  12:5.  Here,  then,  religion  is  called  in 
to  give  color  to  the  obligation  of  obedience  and  loyalty.  But 
this  view  of  the  matter  is  repelled  in  v.  5.  I  see  nothing  here 
to  determine  whether  the  king  is  a  foreigner  or  indigenous; 
nothing  either  Persian  or  Egyptian. 

(3)  Do  not  hastily  depart  from  his  presence.  Do  not  make  delay  in 
regard  to  a  command  which  is  grievous  ;  for  all  which  he  desireth  he  accom- 
plished*. 

The  two  verbs  feftatn  and  T^P)  are  so  united  in  the  expression 
and  qualification  of  one  idea  (there  is  no  1  between  them),  that 
the  first  is  used  adverbially,  and  so  I  have  translated  it  hastily; 
see  §  139,  3,  b.  —  ^nsn  is  in  Niph.  Imperf.,  and  is  reflexive  =  do 


272  ECCLESIASTES    VIII.   4,5. 

not  hurry  thyself.  —  \*$Bf§,from  his  presence  or  his  face.  It  is 
not  the  same  as  Do  not  make  revolt  from  him,  or  Do  not  make 
defection.  It  applies  to  such  as  have  personal  intercourse  with 
him,  and  dissuades  them  from  testifying  dislike  or  impatience  at 
his  commands  or  orders  by  an  abrupt  departure  which  will  of- 
fend him.  —  lro§n,  delay,  standstill,  not  an  unfrequent  sense  of 
TO  ;  see  Josh.  10  :  13 ;  1  Sam.  20  :  38  ;  Ezek.  21  :  35,  Lex. 
No.  2.  So  Sept.  also.  —  IM  here  is  the  same  as  ^5  in  v.  2,  viz., 
command.  —  3Tj  means  grievous,  on  whatever,  or  on  any  ground. 
Here  the  implication,  if  we  advert  to  v.  5,  seems  to  be  that  the 
command  is  both  wrong  and  burdensome.  Sentiment :  '  Treat 
not  lightly  any  command  of  the  king,  and  hesitate  not  to  obey  it 
forthwith,  let  it  be  what  it  may.'  Then  follows  a  reason  for 
prompt  obedience :  '  The  king  has  unlimited  power  to  enforce 
obedience.'  See  like  descriptions  of  power  applied  to  God  in 
Jon.  1  :  14;  Job.  13  :  12. 

(4)  Where  there  is  the  word  of  a  king  there  is  power;  for  who  will  say 
to  him :  What  doest  thou  1 

This  repeats  in  another  form  the  sentiment  of  the  preceding 
clause.  It  reminds  the  reader  that  when  the  king  utters  any 
word,  i.  e.,  command  or  sentence,  there  is  lodged  with  him  power 
to  enforce  its  execution ;  and  therefore  resistance  or  neglect 
would  be  folly.  For  the  last  phrase  which  challenges  all  oppo- 
sition, see  again  Jon.  1  :  14  ;  Job  23  :  13. 

Thus  far  the  man  of  prudential  wisdom.  "We  shall  now  see 
in  what  estimation  Coheleth  holds  such  reasonings. 

(5)  He  who  obeyeth  the  command  will  have  no  concern  ahout  the  griev- 

1;  but  the  heart  of  a  wise  man  will  take  cognizance  of  time  and 
judgment 

-•:-i-.  being  a  participle,  supplies  its  own  subject,  he  who,  or 
whoever,  any  one  who.  —  J"1"^*?,  command,  mandate,  explains  the 
preceding  "C*i. —  FT*  means  in  both  clauses,  to  take  knowledge 


ECCLESIASTES    VIII.  6.  273 

of  in  the  sense  of  caring  for,  having  regard  to,  or  looking  iccll 
to;  see  Gen.  30  :  6 ;  Prov.  27  :  23,  which  make  this  meaning 
very  plain.  —  P"1;,  1,  but,  adversative,  see  Lex.  1  No.  2.  Time 
means  of  course  some  future  time,  which  will  bring  judgment 
with  it.  See  the  same  declaration  in  3  :  17;  and  virtually  the 
same  in  5  :  8  ;  11:9;  12  :  14.  The  wise  man  who  anticipates 
this  will  not  yield  obedience  to  commands  which  bid  him  to  sin, 
sn  wr.  lie  fears  divine  displeasure  more  than  a  monarch's 
frowns.  There  is  no  true  wisdom  in  doing  evil  to  please  a  king 
who  is  but  an  erring  man,  when  that  deed  displeases  the  King 
of  kings. 

I  forbear  to  discuss  the  various  opinions  in  relation  to  this 
passage,  which  may  be  found  in  Knobel,  Heiligst.,  and  others. 
They  are  too  loose  and  conjectural  to  need  confutation.  Hitzig 
seems  to  have  hit  the  true  mark ;  at  least,  my  own  views  coin- 
cide with  his. 

(6)  For  to  every  undertaking  there  is  a  time  and  judgment;  for  the  evil 
of  man  is  great  upon  him. 

"j'Sfi,  in  the  same  sense  as  in  3  :  1,  viz.,  undertaking,  negotium. 
The  existence  of  an  appointed  time  for  judgment,  assumed  in 
the  preceding  verse,  is  affirmed  here.  But  the  latter  part  of  the 
verse  presents  some  difficulty.  The  evil  of  man,  means  here 
that  which  he  commits  or  does ;  for  cognizance  in  judgment 
concerns  only  this,  and  not  the  evils  which  befall  him.  Is  great 
upon  him  means,  weighs  heavily  upon  him;  for  FW,  in  such  a 
connection,  is  explained  in  Gen.  18  :  20  by  *ifiW  !t*t23,  is  very 
heavy;  and  so  in  Is.  24  :  20,  transgression  !"Pbs  nns,  is  heavy  on 
it,  viz.,  the  land.  In  Gen.  4:13  Cain  says  that  "  his  iniquity  is 
greater  Ribja ,  than  he  can  bear  or  carry"  All  these  phrases 
render  the  design  of  our  text  clear.  Sentiment :  '  There  will 
be  a  time  of  judgment,  because  the  evil  which  man  commits  is 
so  great  that  it  presses  heavily  upon  him.'  —  ^)v  indicates  what 
is  burdensome  to  one,  Lex.  bv,  1,  y.     The  *3,  at  the  beginning 


274  ECCLESIASTICS    VIII.   7,8. 

of  the  clause,  is  of  course  causal;  i.  e.,  judgment  is  necessary 
because  evil-doing  is  so  frequent  and  excessive.  The  scriptural 
idea  of  the  appropriate  time  for  punishment  is  this,  viz.,  that  it  is 
the  period  when  iniquity  is  full  or  heavy ;  comp.  Gen.  14  :  16  ; 
Dau.  8  :  23  •  Matt.  23  :  32  ;  1  Thes.  2  :  16.  It  is  the  same  in 
our  text. 

(7)  For  no  one  knoweth  what  shall  take  place;  for  who  can  tell  him 
when  it  shall  take  place  ? 

The  ground  of  the  connection  with  the  preceding  verse  by  the 
causal  "O  is  not  discerned  at  once  by  the  reader.  But  a  little 
consideration  seems  to  show  what  that  ground  is.  Evidently, 
the  writer  means  to  show  the  sinner  that  there  is  no  chance  of 
escape  from  the  judgment  in  question ;  for  since  no  man  can 
know  the  future,  he  cannot  know  that  the  judgment  will  not 
come  ;  and  since  he  cannot  know  when  the  judgment  will  come, 
therefore  he  cannot  take  any  precautions  to  avoid  it.  The  ^3 
before  the  last  clause  is  also  causal,  and  may  be  regarded  as 
coordinate  with  the  13  preceding,  or  as  growing  out  of  the  clause 
immediately  preceding  it.  If  we  choose  the  latter,  the  sentiment 
would  stand  thus:  ' The  future  no  one  can  foretell, for  (^2)  he 
cannot  even  name  a  time  when  this  or  that  shall  happen.'  But 
as  this  does  not  run  quite  smoothly  in  respect  to  logic,  perhaps 
the  other  method  of  coordination  is  to  be  preferred.  So  Hitzig. 
"i^ns,  when,  which  meaning  is  quite  common;  see  Lex.  The 
next  verse  asserts  still  more  positively  the  punishment  of  the 
sinner. 

(8)  No  man  hath  power  over  the  wind  to  restrain  the  wind ;  and  none 
hath  ] tower  in  the  day  of  death,  for  there  is  no  discharge  in  this  warfare, 
and  wickedness  cannot  deliver  those  to  whom  it  belongs. 

TVO  here  lias  more  usually  been  rendered  spirit.  But  if  (his 
were  meant,  it  must  be  written  "irrna ,  over  his,  i.  e.,  his  own  spirit, 
and  must  then  mean  either  his  vital  breath,  or  the  spirit  of  life 


ECCLESIASTES    VIII.  0.  27o 

which  animates  him.  But  if  spirit  mean,  as  is  commonly  sup- 
posed, his  immaterial  soul,  the  passage  must  be  understood  to 
apply  only  to  his  final  departure,  and  to  mean  that  power  is 
wanting  to  keep  back  the  soul  when  it  is  about  to  take  its  flight ; 
for  in  many  other  respects  man  has  power  over  his  spirit,  for 
"he  ruleth  it"  Prov.  25  :  28  ;  16  :  32.  As  to  having  power  over 
the  wind,  see  in  11:5;  Prov.  30:4;  John  3  :  8.  The  same 
word  (n^n)  means  both  wind  and  spirit;  which  may  be  a  reason 
for  fixing  upon  this  object  of  comparison,  viz.,  the  wind.  The 
course  of  thought  seems  to  be  this  :  '  If  you  have  no  power  over 
the  natural  rvn,  how  can  you  have  any  over  the  more  subtile 
and  invisible  mi  of  a  human  being.  If  you  cannot  keep  back 
the  former,  how  can  you  expect  to  restrain  the  latter?'  —  V-V-^ 
is  the  later  form  of  xstyo ,  and  used  in  the  way  of  variety.  Day 
of  death  means  of  decease,  i.  e.,  of  natural  death.  So  his  day  is 
used  in  Job  15  :  32  ;  1  Sam.  26  :  10.  —  rnsarj,  lit.  of  the  death 
=  his  death,  and  being  a  particular  specific  day,  it  takes  the 
article.  So  the  Greeks  often  substitute  the  article  in  place  of  a 
pronoun.  No  discharge  in  the  warfare  (lit.)  =  this  or  his  war- 
fare; for  so  the  article  makes  it  mean.  In  other  wars  there  are 
frequent  furloughs  and  dismissions ;  here,  none.  The  design  of 
all  this  figurative  language  comes  out  at  last  in  plain  words  at 
the  close  :  Wickedness  cannot  deliver  its  possessors,  viz.,  those  to 
whom  it  belongs,  or  (in  other  words)  those  who  commit  it. 

(9)  All  this  have  I  seen,  and  I  gave  my  attention  to  every  deed  which  is 
done  under  the  sun :  there  is  a  time  when  one  man  ruleth  over  another  man 
to  his  own  harm. 

All  this,  viz.,  what  is  stated  above  in  vs.  2 — 4,  with  respect  to 
rulers.  —  ^aWiK  "jina ,  to  give  or  set  one's  heart,  i.  e.,  mind,  to  a 
thing.  The  verb  is  Inf.  abs.  employed  as  a  definite  verb  in  the 
Praeter  tense,  §  1 28,  4,  b.  The  Win  here  may  be  taken  for 
seeing  in  the  natural  sense,  i.  e.,  all  this  is  what  I  have  been 
witness  to  with  my  own  eyes.  —  rrj,  a  time  =  sometimes  ;    of 


27G  ECCLESIASTES    VIII.   10. 

course  Eh  is  implied.  —  "ft ,  to  the  harm  of  the  ruler,  or  (as  in 
the  version)  to  his  own  harm.  In  other  words :  *  He  has  seen 
rulers  insisting  on  obedience  to  evil  commands ;  and  this  at  last, 
to  their  own  hurt.'  It  is  shown  above,  v.  5,  that  obedience  to 
such  evil  commands  is  sin,  and  that  it  brings  evil  upon  him  who 
executes  them.  Now  he  subjoins,  that  such  commands  injure 
those  also  who  give  them.  —  sn  in  this  case  means  mischief, 
harm;  as  often  elsewhere. 

(10)  And  then  I  saw  the  wicked  buried,  for  they  had  departed,  even  from 
a  holy  place  did  they  go  away,  and  then  they  were  forgotten  in  the  city 
where  they  had  so  done ;  this  too  is  vanity. 

Of  the  numerous  explanations  (widely  differing)  which  are 
before  us  I  need  not  give  an  account,  as  it  would  occupy  much 
time  and  space.  Enough,  if  adequate  reasons  can  be  given  for 
the  one  which  is  here  adopted.  The  subject  of  vs.  2 — 13  is 
plainly  one  and  the  same,  in  different  aspects  which,  as  we  have 
already  seen,  lay  very  heavily  upon  the  mind  of  Coheleth,  viz., 
the  oppressive  conduct  of  rulers.  He  blames  men  for  flattering 
them  by  readily  executing  their  wicked  commands,  and  indicates 
that  this  is  a  sin  that  will  certainly  meet  with  condign  punish- 
ment. In  v.  9  seq.  he  turns  to  the  rulers  themselves  who  enforce 
obedience  to  such  commands.  His  proposition  (v.  9)  is,  that  it 
will  occasion  their  own  harm,  as  well  as  that  of  others.  The 
verse  before  us  gives  a  picture  of  the  consequences  which  follow 
such  conduct.  —  I??*!,  lit.  and  in  the  so,  i.  e.,  and  then,  or  in  that 
state  in  which  he  was  while  contemplating  their  conduct  as  men- 
tioned in  the  preceding  verse.  See  a  clear  case  of  such  a  mean- 
ing in  Est.  4:1G,  see  also  Ges.  Lex.  }?,  3,  b.  He  sees  the 
1  rulers  dead  and  buried;  which  does  not  necessarily  im- 
port (as  some  would  have  it)  "with  funeral  honors,"  for  it  is 
.-aid  of  all,  of  good  men  and  evil  men,  of  those  honored  and 
dishonored,  that  they  an'  buried.  So  Ahab  and  Jezebel, 
ad  Zuagog,  are  buried.    To  lie  unburied  is  indeed  dishon or; 


ECCLESIASTES    VIII.  10.  277 

but  buried  ig  not  the  necessary  antithesis  to  this,  in  such  a  way 
that  it  must  mean  honor  ably  buried.  It  means  merely  and  .--imply 
inhumed, entombed.  —  WZ^for  they  had  departed,  gone  away; 
Pluperf.  §  124,  2.  —  Kia  is  frequently  used  to  designate  the  set- 
ting of  the  sun,  and  is  so  generic  that,  progress  or  motion  in  any 
direction  is  occasionally  designated  by  it.  It  may  be  that  r*a 
fcbir  (see  12:5)  is  implied  after  it  here,  i.  e.,  the  perpetual 
home  to  which  they  go ;  but  this  is  not  necessary  in  order  to 
make  out  the  sense.  Like  T\^T},  it  may  sometimes  mean  depart- 
ure, viz.,  to  another  world ;  as  is  plain  in  the  case  of  applying 
the  word  to  the  setting  sun.  The  common  idea  of  the  verb  K"ia 
is  that  of  entering  into  any  house  (for  example)  or  city,  place, 
etc. ;  and  such  an  implication  is  probably  designed  for  the  word 
here.  The  wicked  had  gone  [to  their  final  abode].  The  idea 
of  entering  into  rest  (as  in  Is.  57  :  2 )  is  not  at  all  implied  here ; 
for  there  it  is  predicated  expressly  of  the  righteous,  and  dibu 
follows  on  after  the  verb  Stia.  The  whole  phrase  is  exactly  like 
our  buried  and  gone,  i.  e.,  finally  quitted  all  earthly  scenes.  I 
have  rendered  the  1  before  *iao  by  for,  as  standing  in  a  kind  of 
apodosis,  and  being  equivalent  to  nam  or  quia;  see  Lex.  "J,  No.  4. 
Even  from  a  holy  place  did  they  go.  Not  from  the  temple,  for 
then  we  should  have  ttHpft,  but  from  a  holy  place  (the  article 
being  omitted  in  order  to  avoid  giving  a  wrong  sense).  The 
next  clause  shows  holy  place  to  be  the  city,  i.  e.,  Jerusalem 
(called,  down  to  the  present  hour,  the  Holy  by  all  its  neighbors). 
^\r}"}  (in  pause),  Piel,  which  in  actual  usage  differs,  as  to  sense 
in  this  case,  nothing  from  the  conjugation  Kal ;  generally  Kal 
and  Piel  are  the  same  here,  and  there  is  only  now  and  then  a 
case  of  the  latter,  where  habitude  or  intensity  is  implied.  Hitzig 
proposes  "w^rr]  (Kal),  and  to  translate  it  perished.  But  there  is 
no  need  of  this  new  pointing ;  nor  does  the  meaning  seem  to  be 
what  he  makes  it  here.  The  clause  is  a  climactic  one.  Mot 
only  did  they  depart,  but  even  from  the  holy  city,  where  they  had 
lived,  and  reigned,  and  oppressed,  they  went  away;  i.  e.,  their 

24 


278  ECGLESIASTES    VIII.  11. 

departure  was  made  from  the  city,  by  their  being  carried  out  of 
it  in  order  to  be  buried  ;  as  indeed  all  the  dead  were.  And  then 
(l,  and  so,  and  then)  they  were  forgotten  in  the  city;  in  other 
words,  no  monument  was  erected  to  them,  no  lamentation  made 
over  them,  and  therefore  they  were  forgotten  ;  see  2  Chron.  o5  : 
24,  25,  and  comp.  Jer.  22  :  18,  19.  —  *\X2&  may  be  rendered 
where  (Lex.  s.  v.  No.  6),  or  who.  I  prefer  the  former.  —  fe-",3 
with  a  Maq.,  showing  that  the  two  words  are  closely  united,  and 
thus  deciding  that  "js ,  in  the  view  of  punctators,  is  the  particle 
so  here,  and  not  ",3  right  or  just.  The  clause  they  had  so  done, 
refers  to  what  is  said  of  them  in  vs.  2 — 4,  where  the  subject 
commences.  In  other  words  :  Their  oppression  prevented  the 
erection  of  a  monument  to  their  memory  by  the  hatred  which  it 
excited,  and  caused  them  to  be  buried  in  oblivion.  "  The  tri- 
umphing of  the  wicked  is  short." 

This  interpretation  not  only  makes  the  whole  passage  plain 
and  perspicuous,  but  it  falls  in  entirely  with  the  tenor  of  the  dis- 
course. Hitzig  and  others  render  liSS"?  by  had  done  rightly  or 
justly,  and  thus  make  two  classes  of  men  to  be  mentioned  in  the 
verse.  Nothing  calls  for  this,  and  the  tenor  of  the  context  is 
clearly  against  it.  Our  English  version  favors  the  meaning  which 
I  have  given.  The  writer  designs  to  say  that  even  in  Jerusalem 
he  had  found  examples  of  oppression  among  rulers,  and  had  seen 
the  consequences  of  it  in  the  dishonor  and  oblivion  which  they 
brought  upon  their  own  name  and  memory. 

(11)  Because  sentence  against  an  evil  work  is  not  speedily  executed,  there- 
fore the  heart  of  the  sons  of  men  within  them  is  fully  set  to  do  evil. 

danB  is  masc.  (see  the  foreign  origin  of  this  late  word  in  the 
.  and  therefore  demands  the  preceding  word  to  be  pointed 
PtaJ,  i.  e.,  the  Part  (and  not  a  verb  in  the  Praet.  as  hteSB  is). 
As  this  word  is  preceded  by  yx,  it  must  be  &  participle,  for  "pa 
stands  not  before  definite  verbs,  and  so  it  must  be  nfas?.  Then 
again,  MPB  has  n  pause-accent  on  it,  and  it  stands  in  the  abs. 


ECCLESIASTES    VIII.   12.  270 

form,  whereas  the  sense  shows  that  it  is  the  const,  before  the 
following  Gen.  noun,  and  therefore  should  be  written  csrs,  and 
of  course  not  have  a  pause-accent  on  it.  Sentence  against  an 
evil  work  is  our  English  mode  of  expression  ;  sentence  of  a  work 
of  evil  is  the  Hebrew  one  here,  which  means  of  course  what  I 
have  expressed  in  the  version.  —  SWnSn  is  a  noun  in  the  Gen., 
and  has  the  article  because  it  is  an  abstract  noun,  §  107,  3,  c. 
Of  course  TVD&Q  is  of  the  const,  form,  while  it  also  is  a  Gen. 
alter  the  preceding  noun ;  for  the  const,  form  may  be  in  the 
Nom.,  Gen.,  or  Ace,  as  the  case  may  demand.  The  heart  (db), 
».  e.,  the  heart  as  the  seat  of  thought,  will,  or  desire.  It  strength- 
ens the  assertion  of  proneness  to  evil.  —  ab^z ,  Part,  adj.,  lit.  is 
full,  i.  e.,  full  of  inclination  or  desire,  or  (as  we  say)  fully  set. 
an,  the  adj.  neuter  here,  and  therefore  used  as  a  noun;  it  is  in 
pause,  and  its  normal  form  is  S1] . 

The  proposition  in  this  verse  is  to  all  appearance  general  or 
generic ;  but  under  this  lies  special  reference  to  oppressive  and 
tyrannical  rulers.  Because  punishment  is  protracted,  they  are 
emboldened  to  continue  their  doings.  What  is  said  here  of 
them,  however,  is  true  of  others  also ;  but  this  need  not  hinder 
a  special  application  of  the  words  to  them.    And  so  of  the  sequel. 

(12)  Although  a  sinner  doeth  evil  a  hundred  times,  and  prolongeth  [Ids 
days]  for  himself,  yet  I  certainly  know  that  it  shall  be  well  to  those  who  fear 
God,  who  continually  fear  before  him. 

Trx,  although,  which,  however,  is  not  a  usual  sense  of  the 
word  when  a  case  of  concession  occurs  (Lex.  s.  v.  B.  4) ;  yet  it 
is  sufficiently  vouched  for  by  proximate  meanings  elsewhere. 
6K3T1  (Seghol  for  final  Tseri),  see  §  74,  VI.  n.  21,  a;  the  same 
form  is  also  found  in  Ecc.  9  :  18.  Elsewhere  it  is  frw'n. —  *V09t 
Part,  instead  of  the  verb,  but  in  the  same  sense  as  the  verb,  and 
governing  the  Ace.  after  it,  instead  of  being  put  in  the  const, 
state,  §  132,  I.  a.  b.  —  rx-3  has  the  const,  form,  and  is  an  adverb. 
Some  few  other  eases  occur  of   the   like   kind,  e.  g.,  P5H,  etc. 


280  ECCLESIASTES    VIII.  12. 

rp-iisrs,  Part.  Iliph.,  but  absolute,  t.  e.,  without  a  complement. 
What  then  is  implied  as  to  its  complement?  In  the  next  verse, 
tn^"1  Ti"1"1^"1  would  seem  to  answer  the  question,  and  make  the 
word  mean  the  prolonging  of  life.  But  i^> ,  it  is  said,  stands  in 
the  way  of  this.  Moreover,  it  is  not  by  his  own  efforts  that  life 
is  prolonged  ;  but  in  this  case  it  seems  to  be  said  that  he  pro- 
longs something  for  himself  i.  e.,  by  his  own  efforts.  Still,  as 
the  Dative  is  often  used  after  verbs  (e.g., like  ~\?~T\?.,  Gen.  12:1) 
which  have  no  complement,  it  may  possibly  come  under  this  cat- 
egory, if  the  Hiphil  sense  does  not  prevent  it.  Hitzig  supplies 
for  the  Ace.  here,  the  Sn  nid2  of  the  preceding  verse.  In  favor 
of  the  other  construction  is  the  same  elliptical  use  of  Tf  ^RE  in 
7  :  15,  where  D1^  must  plainly  be  the  supplement;  and  the  full 
form  occurs  here  in  v.  13.  Conceding  this,  "ft  must  be  regarded 
as  a  Dativus  commodi.  —  ^3 ,  yet,  still;  see  Lex.  —  ca ,  profecto, 
qualifies  S'i'h  (as  the  Maqqeph  shows),  and  renders  it  intense  = 
I  certainly  or  truly  know.  It  shall  be  well,  nSza ,  lit.  there  shall  be 
good.  Who  fear  before  him  repeats  the  idea  of  the  preceding 
clause,  for  the  sake  of  intensity.  The  one  is  a  participle,  and 
the  other  a  verb  in  Kal.  Imperf.  of  K'lJ .  Both  therefore  denote 
continued,  habitual  action.  The  repetition,  then,  must  be  for  the 
sake  of  intensity.  Both  phrases  =  those  who  truly  and  habitu- 
ally fear  God. 

In  other  words :  '  Whatever  advantage  oppressors  may  gain, 
and  however  great  the  evils  which  they  occasion,  it  remains  true 
after  all,  and  it  is  a  consolation  for  the  oppressed,  that  those  who 
fear  God  shall  sooner  or  later  obtain  their  reward.'  In  this 
world  ?  The  tenor  of  the  book  is  plainly  against  this,  for  it  is 
often  repented  that  "all  things  come  alike  to  all,"  and  that  "the 
wise  man  and  the  fool  die  alike."  That  it  is  in  another  world, 
then,  seems  to  be  the  necessary  implication;  although  it  seems 
strange  to  us  that  it  is  not  spoken  out  more  plainly  and  fre- 
quently, since  we  are  prone  to  forget  that  "  The  gospel  [only] 
has  brought  life  and  immortality  to  light." 


ECCLESIASTES    VIII.   13,11.  281 

(13)  But  to  the  wicked  it  shall  not  he  well,  nor  shall  he  prolong  his  days ; 
as  a  shadow  is  he  who  doth  not  fear  God. 

This  is  the  antithesis  of  the  closing  part  of  v.  12.  'The 
wicked  shall  be  punished ;  they  shall  not  prolong  their  days.1 
The  accents  join  bst3  to  the  preceding  clause,  much  to  the  injury 
of  the  sense.  Altogether  preferable  is  it  to  join  (as  I  have 
done)  baa  to  the  closing  part ;  and  so  Hitzig.  The  copula  is  of 
course  implied  after  this  word,  so  that  the  sense  is  as  the  version 
above  expresses  it.  As  a  shadow,  means  and  designates  the 
idea  of  what  is  brief  and  fugitive,  or  evanescent,  and  also  unsub- 
stantial. Shadows  are  constantly  varying,  and  at  most  continue 
but  a  little  time.  Such  will  be  the  condition  and  destiny  of  the 
sinner,  and  specially  of  oppressive  rulers,  for  he  has  them  still  in 
his  eye. 

Here,  then,  seems  to  be  a  very  full  and  firm  conviction  of  the 
doctrine  of  a  retribution,  both  for  the  good  and  for  the  evil.  To 
this,  however,  an  objection  rises  up  when  we  come  to  the  exam- 
ination of  actual  occurrences.     He  goes  on  fully  to  state  it. 

(14)  There  is  a  vanity  which  is  done  on  the  earth;  there  are  righteous  to 
whom  it  happens  according  to  the  doing  of  the  wicked ;  and  there  are 
wicked  to  whom  it  happens  according  to  the  doing  of  the  righteous  ;  I  said 
that  this  surely  is  vanity. 

&2  belongs  to  all  numbers  and  genders.  —  Ipsa ,  Hiph.  Part, 
of  353 ,  pervenit,  advenit,  comes,  happens.  The  sentiment  coin- 
cides with  2  :  19 — 21,  and  specially  with  7:15.  The  fact  itself 
cannot  indeed  be  denied.  The  writer  does  not  attempt  to  deny 
or  evade  it.  Still,  he  does  not  take  back  what  he  has  said  in  vs. 
12,  13.  But  if  what  he  meant  to  say  there  was  to  assert  the 
doctrine  of  complete  retribution  in  the  present  world,  then  how 
could  he  speak  as  he  does  here  ?  We  are  forced  then  to  conclude, 
on  the  ground  of  consistency,  that  he  must  have  meant  some- 
thing more.  And  now,  without  denying  the  allegation  made  in 
the  verse  before  us,  he  goes  on  to  prescribe  what  must  be  done 

24* 


282  ECCLESIASTES    VIII.  15,16. 

in  order  to  obtain  any  enjoyment  in  a  world  where  such  things 
are  constantly  occurring.  He  comes  again  to  the  oft-repeated 
conclusion,  viz.,  that  we  must  seek  for  enjoyment  in  the  sober 
and  prudent  use  of  such  good  things  as  our  toil  may  procure. 
After  all,  however,  even  this  toil,  if  rendered  strenuous,  may 
annoy  us  more  than  the  good  is  worth  which  it  acquires.  Mod- 
eration in  this  is  necessary.  He  finds  his  ultimate  refuge,  then, 
in  implicit  submission  to  an  overruling  Providence,  whose  ways 
are  utterly  beyond  our  investigation.  This  thought  is  expanded 
in  the  coming  chapter. 

(15)  Then  I  praised  enjoyment,  because  there  is  no  good  to  man  under 
the  sun  but  to  eat,  and  to  drink,  and  be  joyful;  for  this  will  cleave  to  him 
for  his  toil  during  the  days  of  his  life  which  God  hath  given  him  under  the 
sun. 

"i;x,  because,  as  it  often  means,  see  Lex.  Under  the  sun,i.e., 
in  the  present  world.  —  EX  ^3 ,  but,  except,  see  Lex.  s.  v.  B.  2. 
hfoia .  neut.  intrans.  verb,  as  also  the  preceding  verbs  are  in  this 
connection.  —  '2^ ,  Imperf.  Kal  of  rvfc  with  suff.  *IS— ,  Gramm. 
p.  289.  The  1  is  a  consonant  throughout.  —  feosa,  for  his 
labor,  or  in  respect  to  or  on  account  of  Ms  labor.  "We  have  seen 
(on  2  :  24)  that  a  in  this  book  and  in  the  later  Hebrew  not 
unfrequently  coincides  with  b  in  regard  to  meaning.  —  "^,  Ace. 
const.,  the  Ace.  of  time,  §  110,  2.  Compare  with  this  what  has 
before  been  said  on  passages  of  the  same  tenor,  viz.,  2  :  24 ; 
3  :  1 2, 13,  22  ;  5:18.  The  reasoning  stands  thus :  '  Since  virtue 
and  wickedness  are  both  treated  in  a  way  that  reverses  their 
tendency  and  natural  consequences,  it  follows  that  virtue  does 
not  afford  the  certain  means  at  all  times  to  procure  happiness  in 
the  present  world.  But  still,  this  does  not  forbid  the  enjoyment 
of*  all  the  comforts  that  toil  can  procure.  Of  this  one  can  make 
sure.'  Yet  the  next  verse  throws  in  a  caution  against  too  much 
reliance  even  on  this. 

(1G)  When  I  gave  m y  mind  to  know  wisdom,  and  to  consider  the  busi- 


ECCLESIASTES    VIII.  17.  283 

ness  which  is  done  on  earth  —  that  even  by  day  and  by  night  one  enjoyeth 
no  sleep  with  his  eyes  ; 

The  verse  is  a  protasis  to  the  next  verse,  and  inseparably  con- 
nected with  it  thus:  '  "When  I  did  so  and  so  —  then  I  perceived, 
etc.  —  rc"]b ,  to  know,  here  in  order  to  know,  i.  e.,  acquire  knowl- 
edge of.  — 1"?^0  (as  before)  negotium,  business,  i.  e.,  whatever  is 
undertaken  to  be  done.  Specific  here,  and  therefore  it  has  the 
article.  Before  ^a  the  preceding  verb  I*nsn  is  implied,  but  it 
should  be  put  in  the  past  tense,  viz.,  [/sew]  that,  etc.  —  ^'r, 
Ace.  placed  first  in  the  clause  on  account  of  the  stress  here  laid 
upon  it.  —  nx'n ,  lit.  seeth,  but  here  experienced  or  enjoyeth,  as 
often  elsewhere.  But  who  seeth  no  sleep?  Plainly  it  is  the 
man  who  is  deeply  engaged  in  the  £»  (business)  mentioned 
above.  In  other  words  :  '  Even  the  enjoying  of  the  fruit  of  toil 
is  often  marred  by  engaging  too  earnestly  in  it.' 

(17)  Then  I  saw  all  the  work  of  God  —  that  man  cannot  find  out  the 
work  which  is  done  under  the  sun  :  in  that  which  a  man  may  toil  to  find 
out,  he  will  still  make  no  discovery ;  and  even  if  the  wise  man  should  say 
that  he  knows  it,  he  will  not  be  able  to  discover  it. 

V**1*!  5  %  then,  here  introducing  the  apodosis  or  after-clause. 
Work  of  God,  is  what  he  does.  In  the  second  case,  where,  after 
work,  God  is  left  out,  it  is  still  the  same  ntt}?tt,  as  the  article 
shows,  which  refers  to  the  first  MBSE.  Therefore  i"riz)53,  done, 
means  done  by  God  who  doeth  all  things;  see  9  :  1.  —  bttia  = 
b  'Titea ,  but  as  it  is  followed  by  another  hWX ,  the  meaning  is 
somewhat  embarrassed.  Ewald  and  others  read  ^irsrbra,  in- 
stead of  both  words  now  in  the  text ;  a  more  facile  text,  no 
doubt,  but  not  the  true  one  on  this  account.  —  IniJa  is  used  twice 
in  Jonah,  viz.,  1  :  7,  12,  comp.  v.  8,  where  it  is  explained  as  = 
b  T38ta ,  and  means  in  each  case  because  of,  on  account  of  We 
might  so  translate  here,  and  the  clause  would  run  thus:  because 
that  whatever  a  man  may  toil  to  find,  etc.  But  it  may  also  be 
rendered  as  in  the  version,  which  runs  somewhat  easier.  —  *rx 


284:  ECCLESIASTES    IX.   1-10. 

is  Ace.  governed  by  fck3£ .  —  K^l ,  1  in  the  apodosis,  yet,  still. 
Not  even  crnn ,  the  wise  man,  the  article  by  way  of  eminence. 

In  other  words,  this  matter  of  the  righteous  and  the  wicked, 
as  having  their  respective  lots  reversed,  and  the  insufficiency  of 
an  attempt  to  enjoy  the  fruits  of  labor  —  all  this  is  a  matter  too 
deep  for  us  to  fathom.  God  has  kept  the  grounds  of  this  myste- 
rious dispensation  to  himself.  "  Who  can  by  searching  find  out 
God?" 


§  13.  Suffering  and  Sorrow  the  common  Lot  of  All,  both  Good 
and  Bad.  We  should  look  at  the  brighter  Side  of  Things, 
and  enjoy  what  we  may. 

Chap.  IX.  1—10. 

[The  ninth  should  not  have  been  dissevered  from  the  preceding  chapter, 
with  the  close  of  which  it  is  most  intimately  connected.  The  author  had 
said  that  God's  work  is  inscrutable,  and  to  him  must  be  attributed  the  ar- 
rangement of  all  events.  He  now  says  that  the  righteous  and  the  wise,  and 
all  their  doings,  are  at  the  divine  disposal,  and  subjected  to  the  will  of  God. 
All  have  one  common  lot,  whatever  their  character  may  be,  v.  1.  All  men 
have  more  or  less  of  folly,  and  all  die  alike  (vs.  2,  3),  and  when  dead  all 
enjoyment  ceases,  and  they  know  not  anything  more,  vs.  4,  5.  All  sensa- 
tion ceases,  and  they  have  no  more  a  part  to  act  in  life,  v.  6.  The  only 
alleviation  is  that  one  should  betake  himself  to  enjoy  all  the  innocent  pleas- 
ures he  can  while  Providence  is  smiling  upon  him,  for  this  is  all  the  earthly 
portion  allotted  to  him,  vs.  7 — 9.  Let  him  do  this  with  energetic  effort,  for 
such  and  all  action  is  speedily  to  cease,  v.  10.  Neither  strength  nor  skill 
will  always  command  success;  that  is  at  the  disposal  of  a  power  above, 
v.  11.  Man  cannot  foresee  his  misfortunes,  and  is  often  and  unexpectedly 
overtaken  by  evil,  v.  12.  There  is  one  thing  more,  however,  to  which  some 
preeminence  must  be  given,  viz.,  wisdom,  v.  13.  This  sometimes  contrives 
to  prevent  threatened  evil,  even  when  superior  force  is  employed  to  inflict 
it,  vs.  14,  If).  Wisdom,  then,  is  better  than  power,  although  some  despise  it, 
v.  1G.  The  noiseless  persuasion  of  wisdom  is  better  than  the  vociferous 
boasting  of  fools,  v.  17.  Wisdom  is  better  than  weapons  of  war,  and  one 
unskilled  in  it  mav  do  much  mischief.! 


ECCLESIASTES    TX.l.  285 

(1)  For  all  this  have  I  considored,  and  searched  our  all  this;  that  the 
righteous,  and  the  wise,  and  their  works,  are  in  the  hand  of  God  ;  neither 
love  nor  hatred  doth  any  man  know  ;  all  is  before  them. 

The  ^3  here  Hitzig  renders  j",  truly,  verily.  Of  course  he 
disconnects  this  from  the  preceding  verse.  But  it  seems  to  me 
a  plain  case  of  a  causal  meaning.  In  8  :  1 7,  it  is  said  that  no 
man  can  fathom  the  mystery  of  the  exchange  of  lots  hy  the 
righteous  and  the  wicked.  The  grievous  part  is  assigned  to  the 
righteous.  Now,  he  gives  a  reason  why  this  cannot  be  investi- 
gated by  men,  viz.,  that  all  is  at  the  divine  disposal,  which  has 
so  ordered  matters  that  what  happens  is  not  an  index  of  appro- 
bation or  disapprobation  as  to  persons.  To  put  to  heart  is  to  con- 
si  do;  to  revolve  in  one's  mind;  as  often  before.  —  "Wap,  Inf. 
const.,  but  filling  the  place  of  an  Inf.  absolute,  which  sometimes 
continues  a  discourse  after  a  finite  verb,  in  the  same  manner  as 
if  it  were  itself  finite.  For  an  example  of  the  Inf.  abs.  so  em- 
ployed, see  Is.  42  :  24,  comp.  with  Ezek.  20  :  8.  For  the  like 
of  the  Inf.  const.,  see  1  Sam.  8  :  12,  three  Infinitives  with  b. 
In  Is.  44  :  14,  28  ;  38  :  20  ;  10  :  32  ;  Jer.  19  :  12  ;  2  Chron. 
7:17,  we  find  the  Inf.  const,  with  b  employed  as  a  definite  verb 
in  discourse.  —  Ifcb  is  employed  in  the  same  way  as  if  it  were 
"^nns,  i.  e.^  I  sought  out  or  explored,  root  ""iia.  All  this,  in  the 
second  clause,  is  a  repetition  designed  to  specify  his  entire  inves- 
tigation, and  to  add  intensity  to  the  affirmation.  It  refers  to 
what  is  said  in  vs.  14 — 17  of  Chap.  VIII.  The  righteous  and 
the  wise  are  the  party  for  whom  the  writer  is  most  deeply  con- 
cerned, and  therefore  they  only  are  mentioned  here.  In  the 
hand  of  God,  i.  e.,  they  and  all  their  doings  are  in  his  power, 
and  at  his  disposal.  Neither  love  nor  hatred,  Knobel  takes  in 
the  passive  sense,  i.  e«,  neither  love  nor  hatred  on  the  part  of 
another  toward  the  righteous,  etc.,  not  that  which  they  themselves 
exercise.  IlerzC,  Heiligst.,  and  Hitzig,  however,  understand  the 
latter;  which  can  make  sense  only  by  interpreting  it  as  meaning 
that  men  do  not  know  whether  the/  are  hereafter  to  love  or  to 


286  ECCLESIASTES    IX.   2. 

hate,  since  God  directs  all.  This  seems  to  me  tame  and  insipid. 
The  writer  is  laboring  to  show  (at  least  the  objector  whom  he 
here  personates  is  doing  so)  that  as  all  is  in  the  hands  of  God, 
who  deals  undistinguishingly  with  the  righteous  and  the  wicked 
(see  7  :  14),  so  no  man  can  tell  whether  favor  or  disfavor  is  to 
be  shown  him  in  future.  The  next  verse  fully  confirms  this  view, 
for  he  goes  on  to  say  that  "  all  have  one  common  lot."  I  have 
translated  by  neither  love  nor  hatred  on  account  of  the  "px  (not) 
that  follows.  A  direct  literal  translation  would  be  :  both  love  as 
well  as  hatred  no  man  knoweth,  which  sounds  rather  awkwardly 
in  our  idiom.  The  true  sense  is  given  in  the  version.  The 
whole  is  before  them,  Van,  the  whole  matter,  viz.,  that  which  he 
is  discussing,  or  rather  all  that  pertains  to  their  future  lot  in  re- 
gard to  favor  or  disfavor.  Before  them  means  that  the  matter  in 
question,  viz.,  the  showing  of  these,  is  yet  future,  or  that  the  ex- 
hibition of  these  is  to  be  during  the  period  that  is  before  them, 
i.  e.,  which  is  yet  to  come.  In  other  words :  No  man  can  tell 
whether  good  or  ill  fortune  is  to  betide  him,  because  he  cannot 
know  the  future. 

(2)  All  are  like  to  all;  there  is  one  destiny  to  the  righteous  and  to  tho 
wicked ;  to  the  good  and  pure  and  to  the  impure  ;  to  him  who  sacrificeth 
and  to  him  who  doth  not  sacrifice ;  as  is  the  good  so  is  the  sinner ;  he  that 
Bweareth  is  like  to  him  that  feareth  an  oath. 

The  \zt\  in  this  verse  becomes  personal,  viz.,  the  whole  or  every 
man  is  like  to  every  man,  or  rather  (as  in  the  version)  :  all  are 
like  to  all.  Doubtless  it  is  a  kind  of  apothegm  here,  applied  to 
the  writer's  purpose.  Some  have  supposed  that  it  might  be  trans- 
lated, everything  is  alike  to  every  person ;  i.  e.,  the  same  things 
happen  to  all,  as  the  context  goes  on  to  show.  But  the  article 
prevents  this  rendering  by  a  specific  individual  sense  ;  for  hi ri 
means  the  totality,  like  to  tuv.  Each  one  must  be  Vs.  The 
whole  are  the  parties  mentioned  in  8  :  14 — 17;  for  a  totality  of 
things  cannot  hen-  be  made  out.     The  first  version  is  more  con- 


ECCLESIASTES    IX.  3.  287 

formable  to  the  original,  and  seems  more  easy  and  natural.  All 
are  like  to  all  (Van  generic),  gives  us  the  sentiment  that  every 
one  is  like  to  his  fellow  in  regard  to  the  events  or  evils  of  life. 
Like  most  proverbial  sayings,  this  will  not  bear  minute  scanning. 
We  ask :  If  all  is  one  totality,  then  who  are  the  others  whom  the 
first  resembles  ?  "  Qui  haeret  in  litem,  haeret  in  cortice,"  a 
maxim  of  jurisprudence  says ;  and  it  applies  well  here.  The 
simple  meaning  is  :  '  Every  one  is  like  to  all  the  rest.'  Literally 
the  phrase  would  run  thus :  The  whole  [is]  according  to  that 
which  [is]  to  the  whole;  i.  e.,  all  share  the  same  destiny,  each 
one  is  subjected  to  that  which  happens  to  all  others.  —  p**ntb  > 
with  the  article ;  and  so  of  all  the  names  of  whole  classes  that 
follow.  —  zrJb,good,  in  the  moral  sense  here,  although  it  seldom 
has  such  a  meaning  in  this  book.  —  RBi$b  is  opposed  both  to 
good  and  pure,  and  was  selected  as  being  the  opposite  of  the  im- 
mediate antecedent,  liirj .  In  23T±n  the  construction  is  changed. 
If  it  followed  suit,  it  would  be  5?att?33 .  The  change  of  construc- 
tion is  doubtless  for  the  sake  of  variety.  —  TX&ati:  is  placed  be- 
fore the  Part.  K£J  which  governs  it,  in  order  to  give  it  emphasis. 
The  oath  in  question  may  be  a  civil  one  (see  8  :  2)  ;  or  more 
probably  it  is  here  a  religious  one.  To  sivear  by  Jehovah  is  to 
appeal  to  him  as  the  Supreme  God,  and  is  an  express  acknowl- 
edgment that  he  is  such.  The  characteristics  of  the  classes  are 
such  here  in  general  as  designate  moral  and  immoral,  religious 
and  irreligious.  The  next  verse  presents  to  us  fully  the  design 
of  the  writer  in  bringing  these  discrepant  classes  together,  and 
placing  them  side  by  side. 

(3)  There  is  an  evil  in  everything  which  is  done  under  the  sun,  that  there 
is  one  destiny  to  all ;  and  moreover  the  heart  of  the  sons  of  men  is  full  of 
evil,  and  madness  is  in  their  hearts  while  they  live,  and  after  that  —  to  the 
dead. 

!P*1,  an  evil,  not  with  Rosenm.  the  most  grievous  evil.  The 
evil  in  question  is  described  in  the  next  clause.  —  ^3,  that,  conj. 


288  ECCLESIASTES    IX.   4. 

»TJ|?«, occurrence,  lot,  lack,  destiny.  —  DJH  introduces  an  additional 
evil,  discrepant  from  that  just  described.  Full  of  evil  is  in  8  :  11 
expressed  by  full  to  do  evil.  In  the  latter  passage  this  fulness 
of  evil  is  consequent  on  the  delay  of  punishment ;  but  in  our 
text  it  seems  to  be  consequent  on  the  common  destiny  of  all,  as 
to  suffering  and  sorrow.  Madness,  in  this  book,  sometimes  de- 
notes unreasonable  and  obstinate  folly  in  refusing  to  obey  or  sub- 
mit to  God.  While  they  live,  i.  e.,  during  the  whole  of  their 
lifetime,  this  madness  continues.  And  then  what?  —  D^ltati-V!*, 
to  the  dead,  plainly  elliptical,  tfoVn  (they  ivill  go)  being  implied. 
The  brevity  adds  to  the  energy  of  the  representation.  —  ^"ins , 
after  that,  viz.,  after  suffering  and  doing  evil  all  his  days ;  or  it 
may  be  simply  adverbial,  afterwards. 

(4)  Truly,  whoever  is  joined  to  all  the  living  —  there  is  hope  [for  him] ; 
for  as  to  a  living  dog,  it  is  better  than  a  dead  lion. 

The  ^3  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse  seems  to  be  causal.  But 
the  preceding  clause,  they  go  to  the  dead,  appears  hardly  to  be 
so  connected  with  this  verse  as  to  call  for  or  admit  here  a  cause 
or  reason  of  going  thither.  The  critics  who  call  it  causal  (Kno- 
bcl,  ITitzig),  do  not  show  how  or  why  it  is  so.  It  seems  prefer- 
able, therefore,  since  this  cannot  be  readily  shown,  to  take  ^3  in 
its  occasional  affirmative  sense,  viz.,  profecto  (Germ,  ya  or  aber 
ya),  truly;  Lex.  •*»,  No.  6,  c.  .See  on  4  :  16  for  *3.  Then  the 
connection  of  thought  would  stand  thus  :  *  They  go  to  the  dead 
. . .  truly  a  great  evil,  since  there  is  hope  only  for  the  living,'  etc. 
•na,  although  generally  interrogative  and  meaning  who?  is  also 
at  times  used  indefinitely  to  designate  whoever,  or  he  ivho ;  see 
Lex.  8.  v.  No.  2.  If  we  could  join  Trx  with  it,  and  take  both  as 
meaning  whoever,  it  would  make  a  facile  sense.  But  I  know  of 
no  example  to  support  and  justify  this.  We  seem  compelled, 
then,  to  regard  th<-  Heb.  as  running  thus:  whoever  [there  is] 
that  shall  be  joined,  etc.  If  ra  be  made  an  interrogative  z=wha  is 
th  re  that  is  joined?  etc.,  then  no  tolerable  sense  can  be  made  out 


ECCLK  SIASTES    IX.   4.  2    0 

of  the  passage.  —  ina*  has  vowels  that  belong  to  the  Qeri  *~~*. 
If  the  Kethibh  be  retained,  then  it  must  bo  pointed  ~~~".  Bat 
the  clause  who  shall  choose  (for  this  is  the  meaning  of  ""-"), 
will  make  no  sense  here.  We  feel  obliged,  therefore,  to  adopt  the 
Qeri,  as  the  ancient  translators  and  most  of  the  modern  ones 
have  done.  A  further  reason  for  preferring  the  Qeri  is,  that 
*ina  does  not  take  bx  after  it,  as  here  ;  while  this  particle  appro- 
priately follows  13JTr».  The  latter  means  -.joined  to  or  associated 
with.  All  the  living  designates  multitudinous  living  beings.  The 
whole  expression  wears  a  somewhat  singular  air  — joined  to  the 
mass  of  living  beings,  instead  of  saying  simply  ton  "tOR.  The 
phrase  has,  I  believe,  no  parallel  in  the  Heb.  Scriptures-  There 
is  hope,  i.  e.,  amidst  the  vicissitudes  of  things,  the  bright  side  may 
sometimes  present  itself  as  well  as  the  dark  one.  There  is  hope, 
then,  of  some  enjoyment.  Such  a  living  man  is  much  better 
than  a  dead  man  ;  for  even  a  living  animal,  although  contempti- 
ble, is  better  than  the  king  of  beasts  when  dead.  The  *2  here 
is  causal.  The  clause  that  follows  is  no  doubt  a  proverbial 
maxim.  Knobel  produces  one  from  the  Arabic  (in  Golius's  Adag. 
Cent.)  of  just  the  same  tenor  as  our  text:  "A  living  hound  is 
better  than  a  dead  lion."  In  the  East  the  dog  is  accounted  as  a 
contemptible,  unclean,  detestable  animal.  The  opposite  to  the 
dog  is  here  the  king  of  beasts.  The  antithesis  is  striking.  If 
what  the  proverb  says  of  the  dog  be  conceded,  then  how  much 
better  of  course  is  a  living  man  than  a  dead  one  !  —  -""??,  with 
b  prefix,  and  yet  it  is  the  subject  of  the  sentence.  Cases  of  b 
prefixed  to  the  Nom.  have  been  generally  recognized  ;  e.  g.,  such 
cases  as  in  Ps.  16  :  3  ;  Is.  31  :  1  ;  2  Chron.  7  :  21.  Without 
appealing,  however,  to  this  somewhat  doubtful  principle,  we  may 
solve  the  difficulty  in  another  way.  It  is  plain  that  b  not  unfre- 
quently  means  in  respect  to,  quod  attinet  ad;  see  Lex.  No.  5. 
We  may,  however,  translate  so  as  to  preserve  here  the  usual 
sense  of  b  when  standing  before  a  Dative :  To  a  living  dog  there 
is  good,  compared  with  a  dead  lion.    Then  all  runs  smoothly,  and 

25 


290  ECCLESIASTES    IX.  5. 

the  same  sense  comes  out  as  before.    In  S-pix  ,  the  Si-  is  a  parag. 
formation,  the  simple  word  being  *na. 

(5)  For  the  living  know  that  they  must  die,  but  the  dead  know  not  any- 
thing, nor  is  there  any  more  a  reward  for  them,  for  their  memory  is  forgot- 
ten. 

But  what  comfort  is  there  in  knowing  that  we  are  to  die ; 
specially  where  there  is  no  definite  hope  of  future  happiness  ? 
If  death  is  so  fearful  as  the  writer  (personating,  however,  the 
objector)  has  just  told  us,  it  must  be  only  a  matter  that  harasses 
the  mind,  and  causes  dejection  of  spirit  whenever  it  is  thought 
of.  What,  then,  is  this  advantage  or  reward  of  the  living  ?  And 
has  not  the  writer  said  (7:1)  that  "  the  day  of  one's  death  is 
better  than  the  day  of  his  birth "  ?  Has  he  not  "  praised  the 
dead  which  are  already  dead,  more  than  the  living  which  are 
yet  alive  "  ?  Has  be  not  said  that  "  better  than  both  of  those  is 
he  that  hath  not  been  "  ?  4  :  2,  3.  Yes,  all  this  has  been  said ; 
but  then  it  was  in  a  despairing  moment,  and  in  a  dejected  and 
gloomy  state  of  mind.  And  even  now  the  speaker  claims  small 
meed  for  the  living  —  merely  the  consciousness  that  they  must 
die.  Is  it  better,  then,  to  have  such  a  painful  consciousness  con- 
tinually, than,  like  the  dead,  to  have  none,  or,  as  he  says,  "  to 
know  not  anything  "  ?  I  cannot,  amid  such  embarrassments,  do 
otherwise  than  suppose  his  mind  to  be  intent  on  what  he  has 
said  in  7  :  2,  viz.,  that  "  the  living  who  go  to  the  house  of  mourn- 
ing, will  lay  it  to  heart."  The  consciousness  that  they  must  die 
may  produce  two  important  effects  upon  them ;  the  one,  that  in 
prospect  of  death  they  will  soberly  and  gravely  and  equitably 
demean  themselves,  so  as  to  be  prepared  for  death ;  the  other, 
that,  knowing  the  shortness  of  life,  they  will  make  the  best  of  it 
in  a  sober  use  of  the  good  things  they  may  possess  or  acquire  ; 
see  v.  7  Beq.  below,  If  this,  or  something  like  it,  be  not  the 
design  of  the  writer,  1  know  not  what  it  is.  Hitzig  Iris  shunned 
the  difficulty,  and  Knobel  and  Herzfeld  have  merely  "  nibbled 


ECCLESIASTES    IX.  6.  291 

at  the  bait."  One  must  at  least  have  a  very  gloomy  view  of 
death,  if  lie  is  willing  to  deem  the  mere  consciousness  that  he 
must  die  an  important  advantage  over  a  state  of  death.  Yet 
this  would  seem  to  be  the  literal  and  obvious  meaning  of  our 
text.  Then,  again,  that  the  dead  know  nothing,  and  will  not  have 
even  the  reward  of  being  remembered  (one  of  the  least  of  all 
rewards,  because  they  cannot  participate  in  it),  is  spoken  of  as 
the  consummation  of  human  misery.  Must  not  language  like 
this  come  from  a  worldling  who  indulges  gloomy  reveries,  and 
doubts  of  any  future  existence  ?  What  Christian  can  speak  <o 
now  ?  I  must  believe,  then,  that  Coheleth  has  given  us  here 
some  of  the  most  violent  cases  of  doubt  which  once  passed 
through  his  own  mind,  or  else  was  suggested  to  him  by  some 
objector.  Chap.  8  :  12,  13  discloses  definitely  his  own  views; 
and  they  shine  out  again  in  11  :"9  and  12  :  7, 13, 14,  and  at  least 
gleam  in  3  :  17  ;  5  : 8.  It  is  impossible  to  harmonize  both  classes 
of  texts,  except  by  filing  away  until  all  the  strength  and  sub- 
stance of  the  language  is  gone.  Why  may  we  not,  therefore, 
consent  that  the  objector  should  speak  his  full  mind,  as  Paul 
often  makes  him  to  do  ?  With  this  position  for  our  basis,  we 
need  be  under  no  serious  embarrassment  in  our  interpretation. 
Only  a  dissatisfied,  doubting,  gloomy  mind  engenders  and  broods 
over  such  conceptions  as  these.  —  ttTD^j ,  u  =  icx ,  and  the  verb 
is  Imperf.  Kal,  3d  plur.  with  si  medial  omitted,  and  -  vicarious 
put  for  *i ,  i.  e.,  in  the  room  of  it ;  §  8,  III.  Class  b. ;  the  root  is 
n*ra .  No  reward,  i.  e.,  no  means  of  after-enjoyment.  Even  the 
least  of  all  comforts,  that  of  being  remembered,  is  denied  to 
them. 

(6)  Moreover,  their  love  as  well  as  their  hatred,  and  also  their  jealousy, 
lias  already  perished ;  they  have  no  more  part  forever  in  all  that  is  done 
hencath  the  sun. 

The  deep  tone  of  gloomy  and  despairing  sensitiveness  here 
speaks  out  in  respect  to  "the   supposed  condition  after   death. 


292  ECCLESIASTES    IX.  7. 

Neither  love  of  friends,  or  hatred  of  enemies,  or  jealousy  of  the 
more  fortunate,  agitates  them  any  more.  No  more  can  they 
engage  in  any  worldly  pursuit.  This  probably  alludes  to  the 
common  popular  notions  about  the  shadowy  CKS}1}  in  the  under 
world,  the  umbrae  of  departed  persons,  deprived  of  all  substantial 
life,  and  enjoyment,  and  action.  Love  of  holiness,  hatred  of  sin, 
and.  jealousy  (as  we  render  rixpjr)  for  the  honor  of  God,  do  all 
exist  in  a  future  state.  "  The  pleasures  forevermore,"  which 
David  anticipated  (Ps.  16:11);  "the  being  satisfied  with  awak- 
ing in  the  likeness  of  God"  (Ps.  17  :  15)  ;  "the  awaking  from 
the  dust  to  everlasting  life  "  (Dan.  12:2),  must  surely  have  been 
out  of  the  mind  of  him  who  uttered  such  complaints  as  our  text 
and  context  exhibit,  at  least  for  the  time  being ;  and,  like  holy 
(but  not  always  consistent  and  submissive)  Job,  he  was  doubtless 
ready  to  curse  the  day  of  his  birth,  Job  3:1.  It  seems  to  me 
impossible  to  give  any  other  account  of  this  matter,  if  the  lan- 
guage be  fully  and  fairly  investigated,  and  left  to  speak  for  itself. 
But  what  reply  does  Coheleth  make  to  all  this  ?  We  shall 
immediately  see  in  the  sequel. 

(7)  Go,  eat  with  gladness  thy  bread,  and  drink  with  a  joyful  heart  thy 
wine,  for  God  has  long  since  favorably  regarded  thy  work. 

Once  more,  then,  in  this  extremity,  when  it  is  urged  that  virtue 
and  vice  both  meet  with  the  same  rewrard,  and  that  all  have  one 
and  the  same  inevitable  doom,  Coheleth  betakes  himself  to  the 
advice  so  often  before  repeated  (2  :  24;  3  :  12,  22  ;  5  :  18),  viz., 
that  one  should  enjoy  the  fruit  of  his  labor,  and  accept  what  he 
can  enjoy  with  gladness  of  heart.  But  in  the  present  case  he 
goes  more  fully  into  this  subject,  and  brings  more  particulars  of 
enjoyment  to  view;  as  the  following  verses  will  show.  —  tjb, 
Imper.  of  rfc-  —  *"|~r^>  suff.  form  of  Brfc  (reg.),  with  ?]_  in 
pau  <■.  —  Z"J>,  glad  rather  than  merry.  The  latter,  as  Coheleth 
thinks,  belongs  only  to  fools.  —  Spas*?,  prob.  sing,  here,  although 
it  has  the  form  of  the  plural;  see  §  91,  9,  where  it  is  shown  that 


ECCLESIASTES    IX.  8,9.  203 

the  suffix  state  of  nouns  from  roots  fib,  is  often  the  same  in  both 
the  sing,  and  plural.  Thy  work  or  thy  doing  is  the  thing  done, 
or  to  be  done,  in  obeying  the  command  as  given  above.  God 
has  permitted  and  given  his  approbation  to  such  doing,  is  what 
the  writer  means  to  say. 

(8)  At  all  times  let  thy  garments  be  white,  and  let  not  oil  upon  thy  head 

he  lacking. 

The  Hebrews  often  employ  T\"J  (sing,  number)  in  the  same 
way  as  we  do  the  plural.  I  have  translated  in  accordance  with 
our  usual  idiom.  Garments  be  white,  because  such  were  the 
garments  worn  by  those  who  were  rejoicing,  while  sackcloth  was 
the  usual  costume  of  mourners,  and  of  such  as  fasted.  See  2 
Sam.  12  :  20  ;  19  :  24,  and  the  opposite  of  these  in  Ps.  35  :  14  ; 
Mai.  3  :  14;  2  Sam.  14  :  2.  The  anointing  of  the  head  with 
oil  was  another  custom  observed  by  those  who  were  rejoicing ; 
comp.  Matt.  6  :  17  ;  Ruth  3:3;  Dan.  10  :  3. 

(9)  Enjoy  life  with  the  wife  whom  thou  lovest,  all  the  days  of  thy  vain 
life  which  he  hath  given  to  thee  under  the  sun,  all  the  days  of  thy  vanity  : 
for  this  is  thy  portion  in  life,  and  in  the  toil  which  thou  hast  performed 
under  the  sun. 

h&t*i,  see  in  2  :  1,  enjoy.  —  l»av*bsJ  Ace.  of  time.  —  "jW,  he  hath 
given;  who?  God  of  course  is  implied,  as  it  has  often  been 
already  expressed;  see  5  :  17.  —  6MM,  masc,  but  here  used  for 
the  neuter,  it  is  or  this  is,  viz.,  that  which  had  been  before  en- 
joyed. Ewald  says  "  that  this  is  a  i  schlechtes  Kethibh '  (a  sorry 
orthography)  of  the  Babylonian  Jews  !"  But  see  the  same  in 
3  :  22  ;  5  :  17.  It  is  hardly  correct  to  say  that  only  the  fern,  ion 
is  employed  elsewhere  as  the  neuter,  although  this  is  the  most 
frequent  usage.  In  the  Pent,  both  are  usually  written  Kin ,  but 
when  fern.,  pointed  Kin,  in  reference  to  a  supplied  Qeri  in  the 
margin,  &on .  And  besides  this,  Kin  is  fern.,  or  used  as  fern,  in 
1  K.  17  :  15  ;  Job  31  :  11  ;  I>.  30  :  33,  see  Lex.  The  position 
of  Hitzig,  then,  does  not  seem  to  be  quite  firm. 

25* 


294  ECCLESIASTES    IX.   10. 

In  all  this  there  is  nothing  Epicurean.  It  is  plainly  the  sober 
enjoyment  of  life  which  he  commends,  and  nothing  is  mentioned 
which  is  unlawful  or  forbidden.  Such  is  the  course  to  which 
Coheleth  advises,  rather  than  to  indulge  in  the  gloomy  views 
and  feelings  that  had  just  been  expressed.  Here  again  we, 
under  the  meridian  sun  of  the  gospel,  are  at  a  loss  to  see  why 
he  did  not  point  the  disconsolate  complainer  to  a  brighter  and 
better  world.  It  would  be  spontaneous  in  us  to  do  so.  But 
this  subject  has  already  been  discussed  above,  and  the  discussion 
need  not  be  repeated  here.  Beyond  a  doubt,  the  course  advised 
is  better  than  gloom  and  murmuring ;  and  so  far  as  this  world 
merely  is  concerned,  to  pursue  this  course  wrouid  make  us  more 
contented  and  happy  than  to  turn  from  it  or  forsake  it. 

(10)  All  which  thy  hand  findeth  to  do  with  thy  might,  do  [it] ;  for  there 
is  no  work,  nor  planning,  nor  knowledge,  nor  wisdom  in  the  world  beneath 
whither  thou  art  going. 

Thy  hand  jindeth,  i.  e.,  whatever  thou  canst  grasp,  or  whatever 
is  at  thy  disposal;  comp.  Lev.  12  :  8  ;  25  :  28.  —  ^=3,  by  thy 
power,  i.  e.,  with  thy  might  or  ability.  —  n'e»,  do  [it],  the  pro- 
noun being  implied  after  the  verb.  Do  it  forthwith  and  energet- 
ically. Why  ?  Because  there  is  no  work,  etc.  The  1  prefix  I 
have  rendered  nor,  because  of  the  "px  at  the  head  of  the  clause. 
The  advice  here  given  is  adapted  to  increase  the  enjoyment  of  a 
rational  man,  one  of  whose  instincts  is  to  be  active  and  engaged 
in  something.  To  be  and  to  do  this  renders  him  more  con- 
tented and  happy.  There  is  no  work  nor  planning,  etc.,  comp. 
v.  5  above,  where  is  the  same  sentiment.  Does  Coheleth  say 
this  for  himself,  or  does  he  merely  recapitulate  what  the  objector 
had  said  ?  I  prefer  the  latter  view.  Then  the  matter  would 
stand  thus :  '  Enjoy  thyself  all  that  thou  canst ;  be  ever  busy 
and  engaged  with  something ;  for  this  will  help  thee  to  forget 
thy  gloomy  forebodings.  And  this  is  sound  advice,  provided 
that  all  you  say  is  true,  viz.,  that  there  is  no  work,  etc.     All  this 


ECCLESIASTES    IX.   10.  295 

need  not  hinder  the  enjoyment  that  you  may  reasonably  have.' 
b'xrzi,  in  Sheol,  I.  <?.,  the  under-world,  the  world  of  the  dead. 
The  connection  in  which  v.  10  stands  does  not  well  admit  of 
the  language  being  ascribed  directly  to  the  objector.  But  his 
objection  seems  to  be  indirectly  introduced ;  for,  as  we  have  seen, 
the  settled  opinion  of  Coheleth  himself  (8  :  12,  13)  was  some- 
thing quite  different  from  this.  It  would  be  difficult  to  make 
out  consistency  on  any  other  ground  than  that  here  taken.  Neo- 
logical  commentary  points  to  this  chapter  with  special  confidence, 
as  showing  that  Coheleth  neither  knew  nor  believed  anything  of 
a  future  state.  But  what  if  it  mistakes  an  objector's  words,  and 
ascribes  them  to  Coheleth  himself?  The  positive  passages 
which  show  his  views  of  a  judgment  and  of  retribution,  are  too 
strong  to  justify  us  in  yielding  to  suggestions  of  this  nature, 
prompted  and  quickened  by  a  spirit  of  scepticism. 

§  14.   Wisdom  profits  sometimes,  and  at  other  times  not;  Folly 
will  be  sure  to  meet  with  due  Reward. 

Chaps.  IX.  11— X.  20. 

[Vs.  11,  12,  bring  before  us  again,  on  the  part  of  the  objector,  the  subject 
of  an  overruling  destiny,  against  which  wisdom  is  of  no  avail.  Men  are 
caught  as  in  a  net  in  spite  of  wisdom,  when  evil  suddenly  befalls  them. 
To  this  Coheleth  replies  that  he  has  known  some  signal  cases  where  wisdom 
protected  from  danger;  these  he  produces  in  vs.  13 — 15.  He  therefore  eulo- 
gizes wisdom  more  than  strength,  v.  16.  The  quiet  words  of  the  wise  have 
much  more  that  commands  attention  in  them  than  the  outcry  of  fools  ;  wis- 
dom is  better  than  warlike  instruments,  and  the  want  of  it  may  do  great  mis- 
chief, vs.  17, 18.  Chap.  x.  Folly  spoils  everything,  v.  1.  A  fool  will  disclose 
his  folly  in  all  his  actions,  vs.  2, 3.  Wisdom  directs  to  act  prudently,  and 
not  foolishly,  when  rulers  are  angry,  v.  4.  Fools,  when  promoted  to  honor, 
show  their  folly,  vs.  5 — 7.  There  are  various  ways  in  which  folly  and  im- 
prudence may  be  developed,  vs.  8—15.  Woe  to  the  land  that  has  foolish 
rulers,  vs.  16,  17.  Gluttonous  and  slothful  rulers  occasion  many  evils,  vs. 
18,  19.  Take  good  care  how  you  utter  anything  against  rulers,  for  they  will 
be  sure  to  find  it  out,  v.  20.] 


296  ECCLESIASTES    IX.   11,12. 

(11)  I  turned  and  saw  under  the  sun  that  the  race  is  not  to  the  swift,  nor 
the  battle  to  the  strong;  and  moreover,  that  bread  is  not  to  the  wise,  and 
also  that  riches  are  not  to  the  discerning,  and  likewise  that  favor  is  not  to 
the  knowing,  but  time  and  chance  happen  to  all  of  them. 

rtk*i,  Inf.  abs.  as  a  definite  verb;  see  cases  under  *?K&  in  v.  1. 
rraf&a ,  victorious  contest  here.  —  bin  stands  before  three  partic- 
ulars in  succession.  They  are  coordinate  in  Heb. ;  but  it  is  dif- 
ficult with  a  negative,  as  here,  to  render  them  into  English  so  as 
to  give  the  exact  shape  of  the  Hebrew.  —  C5  denotes  accession, 
and  is  in  its  own  nature  climactic.  But  here,  as  all  the  particu- 
lars are  coordinate,  we  can  hardly  make  out  any  climactic  shape 
or  design  of  the  clauses.  There  is  no  gradation  in  the  impor- 
tance of  them.  —  c^rin?,  Niph.  Part.  adj.  sing,  yi 33,  from  "pa. 
■jn ,  favor.  —  M5 ,  time,  viz.,  seasons  when  this  or  that  will  occur. 
MB ,  chance,  i.  e.,  whatever  happens  to  or  befalls  one.  —  •DP?  > 
occur,  meet,  come  upon.  In  other  words  :  All  are  subject  to  the 
sports  of  fortune,  and  neither  strength,  nor  wisdom,  nor  intelli- 
gence can  prevent  it.  This  is  the  old  complaint  against  wisdom, 
viz.,  that  it  is  of  no  avail.  An  irresistible  power  orders  all  these 
things  as  it  pleases.  All  this  is  aggravated  by  the  fact  that  men 
can  have  no  previous  knowledge  of  disasters  so  as  to  shun  them. 
So  the  next  verse : 

(12)  For  no  man  knoweth  his  time  ;  like  fishes  that  are  caught  in  a  de- 
structive net,  or  like  sparrows  which  are  caught  in  a  snare,  so  they,  the  sons 
of  men,  are  ensnared  in  an  evil  time  when  it  comes  suddenly  upon  them. 

rv  Hitzig  explains  by  time  of  death.  But  the  last  part  of  the 
verse  shows  that  it  is  the  time  of  misfortune.  The  ^  at  the 
beginning  is  causal.  The  preceding  verse  declares  that  time  and 
chance  come  upon  all.  One  reason  here  given  for  this  is,  that 
no  man  can  do  any  thing  to  escape  the  evils  of  life,  because  he 
knows  not  when  they  are  coming,  and  therefore  cannot  do  any- 
thing  effectual  to  prevent  them.  They  come  upon  men  as  unex- 
pectedly as  upon  the  fishes  and  the  birds,  who  cannot  anticipate 


ECCLESIASTES    I  X  .   in,  14.  207 

them.  —  B1??'?  ^  is  added  to  explain  BPJ,  and  is  put  in  apposi- 
tion with  it.  —  Di«5j5!p,  Part.  Pual  of  ttjfc*,  dropping  its  £  pre- 
formative;  see  §  51,  2,  n.  4  and  5.  The  Dagh.  forte  which 
would  regularly  be  in  p  is  dropped  because  of  the  preceding 
long  vowel  *i  —  "  solvitur  ob  vocalem  longam."  —  ^iBPltiS=biKn 
and  "NCStS) ,  when.  The  verb  is  fem.  Imperf.  of  bsD ,  and  agrees 
with  Pi5,  which  is  fem.  Such  is  the  unhappy  lot  of  man,  in  the 
view  of  the  objector.  Let  us  hear  the  reply,  which  shows  that 
wisdom  ought  not  to  be  so  underrated. 

(13)  I  too  have  seen  this  [namely],  wisdom  under  the  sun,  and  it  was 
great  to  me. 

The  H't  is  fem.  and  refers  to  the  subsequent  rtBBn.  The  He- 
brew construction  is  involved.  We  should  naturally  expect 
n't  rrarn.  On  this  account  Hitzig  writes  it  fit,  and  translates  : 
That  have  I  seen:  Wisdom,  etc.  This  seems  too  hard.  I  should 
prefer  to  repeat  the  verb  waft  mentally,  and  place  it  before 
)TC3n.  I  take  n't  as  anticipative,  and  have  so  translated.  —  ton, 
was  it.  —  ibx ,  to  me,  i.  e.,  in  my  view,  or  to  my  mind  or  "appre- 
hension ;  comp.  Jon.  3:3.  What  the  wisdom  in  question  is,  he 
is  going  to  explain  by  example. 

(14)  There  was  a  little  city,  and  the  men  in  it  were  few;  and  there  came 
unto  it  a  great  king,  and  he  surrounded  it,  and  built  over  against  it  large 
towers. 

There  was  is  the  necessary  implication  of  the  text,  but  is  not 
written.  —  »"i22p,  fem.  of  1»9{3,  a  Pilel  form  with  Dagh.  implied 
in  the  final  "J ,  which  makes  its  appearance  in  the  fem. ;  see 
§91,  8.  —  BSa,  in  pause,  lit.  fewness.  A  great  king,  here  so 
called  probably  from  his  leading  on  many  troops.  —  ii^bv ,  against 
it,  but  this  preposition  involves  something  more,  viz.,  over  against 
which  means  that  the  towers  corresponded  to  the  walls,  and  prob- 
ably (of  course)  overtopped  or  overlooked  them.  Such  towers 
were  movable,  and  could  be  advanced  to   the  walls,  or  drawn 


298  ECCLESIASTES    IX.   15,16. 

back  from  them,  and   so   gave  much  advantage  to  besiegers. 
cVra,  both  capacious  and  lofty. 

(15)  And  there  was  found  in  it  a  wise  poor  man,  and  he  rescued  the  city 
by  his  wisdom ;  and  yet  no  one  remembered  that  poor  man. 

The  verb  XS'a  is  without  any  Nom.  expressed ;  and  of  course 
we  may  translate  thus:  One  found,  etc.,  or  in  the  Pass,  as  above. 
The  two  adjectives,  trn  "jSOri,  are  coordinate,  and  both  belong 
to  IB^X .  The  omission  of  the  conjunctive  1  denotes  a  close  union, 
like  poor-wise,  almost  a  kind  of  compound  word.  —  &MM  is  em- 
phatic, and  therefore  expressed.  Wisdom  here  means  sagacity, 
i.  e.,  in  employing  the  means  of  defence  or  aggression.  —  fcttrtTj, 
that  same,  an  intensive  here. 

Hitzig  refers  this  to  the  besieging  of  the  little  town  of  Dora, 
on  the  sea-shore,  by  Antiochus  the  Great  of  Syria,  about  218 
b.  c.  He  could  not  take  it  with  all  his  troops.  So  he  repre- 
sents the  time  of  writing  the  book  to  be  that  during  the  period 
of  Ptolemy  Euergetes's  reign.  But,  in  the  first  place,  cases  of 
this  kind  are  so  frequent  that  there  is  no  necessity  of  supposing 
in  the  present  one  that  this  or  that  individual  fact  is  before  the 
writer's  eyes,  but  only  a  vivid  recollection  of  instances  of  the 
like  kind.  Secondly,  it  will  by  no  means  follow  that  we  must 
come  so  low  down,  and  insist  on  finding  an  appropriate  example 
that  is  actually  on  record  ?  Were  there  not  many  such  cases  at 
an  earlier  period  of  which  we  have  no  existing  record,  although 
they  may  have  once  been  chronicled  ?  Enough,  that  the  exam- 
ple adduced  would  be  readily  admitted  as  a  fact,  i.  e.,  acknowl- 
edged to  be  true  and  in  point. 

(16)  Then  I  said  :  "Wisdom  is  better  than  force;  yet  the  wisdom  of  the 
poor  man  is  despised,  and  his  words  are  not  listened  to. 

Tin'  meaning  is  not  that  he  then  said  so  and  so,  but  now 
Bays  differently,  but  that  he  then  said  and  still  says.  —  FTW3, 
fein.  Part,  pass.,  masc  isita,  from    hta.     And  his  words,  etc., 


ECCLESIASTES    IX.  17,18.  200 

Heb.  lit.,  and  as  to  his  words  (Xom.  abs.)  they  arc  not,  etc 
But  how  then  was  the  city  saved  if  his  wisdom  was  despised, 
and  his  counsel  not  listened  to?  The  answer  is,  that  the  writer 
is  here  characterizing  the  man  in  a  general  way ;  lie  is  stating 
what  usually  happens,  and  thus  describing  the  neglect  which 
such  men  usually  have  to  suffer;  and  not  telling  us  merely  what 
happened  in  relation  to  him  on  the  particular  occasion  now 
brought  before  us.  He  wishes  to  show  that  a  poor  and  wise  man, 
who  commonly  is  looked  down  upon,  and  to  whom  no  one  is  dis- 
posed to  listen,  because  he  occupies  a  low  place,  may  still  accom- 
plish important  objects,  beyond  the  reach  of  mere  force. 

(17)  The  words  of  the  wise,  in  a  quiet  way,  arc  heard  rather  than  the 
shouting  of  a  leader  among  fools. 

The  meaning  clearly  is,  that  the  words  of  the  wise  are  calmly 
and  modestly  uttered,  instead  of  their  making  a  bluster  and  out- 
cry;  for  this  word,  SnH52,  is  opposed  to  the  boisterousness  (r£"}) 
of  fools.  Even  a  bttJia ,  a  leader,  prince  among  fools,  has  less 
chance  of  producing  any  effect  by  his  vociferous  addresses  than 
the  wise  man  quietly  giving  counsel.  This  prince,  by  the  way, 
is  himself  supposed  to  be  one  of  the  fools;  for  otherwise  the  point 
of  the  discourse  would  vanish.  A  wise  man  might  reign  over 
fools,  and  still  act  wisely.  But  the  outcry  which  this  S>ejva  makes, 
shows  that  he  belongs  to  the  fools. 

(18)  Better  is  wisdom  than  instruments  of  war ;  and  one  sinner  destroy- 
eth  much  good. 

The  meaning  of  the  first  clause  is  evident  from  vs.  14,  15 
above.  —  KOin  has  final  Seghol  instead  of  Tseri,  for  which  see 
§  74,  VI.  n.  21.  The  word  here  evidently  points  to  an  offender 
against  wisdom,  i.  e.,  a  fool.  He  who  neglects  the  precepts  ami 
guidance  of  wisdom  can  do  nothing  but  harm  by  his  mis- 
management; yea,  in  case  he  is  a  fctDia,  he  will  do  much 
harm,  i.  c,  destroy  much  good. 


300  ECCLESIASTES    X.   1 

Chap.  X. 

(1)  Dead  flies  make  the  ointment  of  the  apothecary  to  stink  —  to  fer- 
ment ;  more  weighty  than  wisdom,  and  also  than  what  is  costly,  is  a  little 
folly. 

It  is  difficult,  in  the  first  clause,  to  account  for  the  sing,  num- 
ber of  the  two  verbs.  There  is  a  small  class  of  cases  where 
the  verb  agrees,  in  case  of  a  composite  subject,  with  the  noun 
that  follows  the  const,  state,  rather  than  with  the  const,  noun 
itself,  which  is  the  usual  and  natural  Nom.  or  subject,  §  145,  1. 
But  most  of  these  cases  are  such  as  that  a  kind  of  compound 
noun  may  be  made  of  the  two  nouns ;  or  they  are  cases  in  which 
the  const,  noun,  i.  e.,  that  which  comes  first,  is  virtually  an  adjec- 
tive, §  104,  l,n.  1.  Here  neither  of  these  principles  will  readily 
apply.  We  must,  then,  either  suppose  this  is  an  unusual  exten- 
sion of  the  principle  above  noticed,  or  that  the  i  in  i&UT  is 
merely  euphonic,  as,  e.  g.,  p^—ob^ ,  and  the  like.  But  these 
last  forms  are  mostly  compound  proper  names  only.  To  render 
■^-T  by  the  singular,  *.  e.,fly  (which  Ewald  has  done,  and  Hit- 
zig  seems  to  approve),  is  cutting  the  knot,  not  untying  it.  Be- 
sides, to  talk  of  one  fly  as  corrupting  a  parcel  of  unguent,  seems 
to  us  very  odd,  to  say  the  least.  It  must  be  a  very  small  parcel 
of  ointment,  at  any  rate,  and  a  very  large  fly.  On  the  whole,  I 
see  no  solution  so  promising  as  that  dead  flies  are  considered  en 
masse  here,  t.  e.,  as  a  totality,  and  so  the  apparently  plural  subject 
may  take  a  verb  singular.  The  principle  of  severalty,  or  individ- 
uality, in  the  continuance  of  the  sentence  after  a  plural  subject 
cannot  in  this  case  be  well  admitted,  for  that  again  would  bring 
us  virtually  to  the  incredible  assertion  that  each  fly  produces  the 
effects  that  are  described.  On  the  whole,  however,  Ilitzig  thinks 
it  most  feasible  to  adopt  this  solution,  and  refers  us  for  like  ex- 
amples to  v.  15  below  and  to  Hos.  4  :  8.  But  both  of  these 
ca  i  a  are  of  such  a  nature,  that  what  is  asserted  of  the  many  is 


ECCLESIASTICS     X  .    1.  SOL 

specially  and  plainly  true  of  each  individual,  lint  this  cannot 
be  said  here  ;  for  it  is  only  the  many  which  can  produce  the 
effect  asserted.  On  the  contrary,  he  notes  a  case  of  the  opposite 
nature,  where  the  writer  goes  from  the  singular  over  to  the 
plural  (Zech.  14  :  12),  DftTDS  .  .  .  isub.  But  here  again  the  \  is 
a  pronoun  of  multitude.  If  the  grammar  is  not  in  his  favor 
(and  this  seems  to  be  the  case),  the  sense  thus  made  is  still  more 
against  him,  because  an  individual  fly  could  not  produce  the 
effects  in  question.  As  to  the  rendering :  poisonous  or  deadly 
flies,  the  words  might  mean  this  of  themselves,  but  they  cannot 
do  so  here.  It  makes  nothing  to  the  writer's  purpose  to  call 
them  deadly,  for  such  would  corrupt  the  mass  no  more  than 
others.  Moreover,  there  would  then  be  an  implication  that 
other  flies  would  not  corrupt  it,  which  is  not  true.  —  n£"h ,  of  the 
unguentarius,  i.  e.,  of  the  person  who  compounds  the  ointment 
for  sale.  Of  course  it  was  a  composition  which  required  skill 
in  order  to  make  it  saleable.  Both  words,  tt£'h,  •jtdizj,  indicate 
precious  ointment,  viz.,  such  as  was  compounded  with  skill  and 
care. 

*ij£  has  here  its  original  sense,  viz.,  weighty,  heavy.  The 
imagery  is  drawn  from  scales  in  which  the  greater  weight  pre- 
ponderates. Both  clauses  here  illustrate  the  latter  clause  of  the 
preceding  verse,  viz.,  one  sinner  destroyeth  much  good.  The 
flies,  although  small  and  contemptible  animals,  may  do  much 
mischief  to  valuable  substance. — ttJ^l^  (Hiph.),  makes  or  causes 
an  ill  savor;  Jiaj  (Hiph.  of  3>53),  makes  to  bubble  up,  i.  e.,  fer- 
ments. The  two  verbs  are  asyndic,  i.  e.,  joined  without  any  1 
between  them,  but  we  are  unable  to  render  either  of  them  ad- 
verbially here,  or  (as  usual)  to  make  one  qualify  the  other  (§  139, 
3,  b)  as  a  kind  of  helping  verb.  But  still  there  is  an  intimate 
connection  between  them,  for  a  rendering  fetid  is  accomplished 
by  causing  fermentation.-  The  effect  is  first  named  in  our  text, 
and  tlten  the  cause  of  it  is  described.  This  energetic  mode  of 
expression  is  not  unfrequent  in  Heb.,  but  we  can  rarely  imitate 

26 


302  ECCLESIASTES    X.  2. 

it  in  English  with  much  success,  because  the  structure  of  the 
idioms  is  so  diverse.  In  the  latter  clause,  the  preponderance 
which  only  a  little  of  folly  has  over  wisdom  and  over  whatever 
is  precious  shows  "  how  great  a  matter  a  little  fire  kindleth,"  or 
that  "  one  sinner  may  destroy  much  good."  Such  is  the  debas- 
ing and  corrupting  influence  of  folly,  that  only  a  little  of  it  will 
spoil  the  most  valuable  and  precious  qualities  or  virtues.  The 
object  of  the  verse  before  us  (to  confirm  what  precedes),  and  the 
manner  of  accomplishing  this  object,  seem  then  to  be  quite  plain  ; 
so  plain,  that  the  separation  of  chapters  here  is  incongruous  and 
almost  preposterous.  It  is  not.  improbable  that  both  parts  of  v.  1 
are  apothegms,  applied  here  to  the  writer's  special  purpose.  He 
might  indeed  have  expressed  his  present  views  in  plain  and 
direct  words;  but  he  has  chosen  a  method  of  doing  it  which 
gives  more  life  and  vivacity  to  the  discourse.  An  ordinary 
reader  mistakes  such  passages  for  mere  unconnected  apothegms. 
But  we  have  seen  how  little  ground  there  is  for  this. 

(2)  The  heart  of  a  wise  man  is  on  his  right,  but  the  heart  of  a  fool  on  his 
left. 

The  physical  place  of  the  literal  heart  is  out  of  the  question 
here,  for  that  would  reverse  the  statement,  the  beating  heart 
being  on  the  left  side  of  the  breast.  Right  and  left  are  used 
metaphorically  for  dexterous  and  ungained  or  unskilful.  The 
right  hand  is  the  usual  one  for  action ;  the  left  is  more  rarely 
and  awkwardly  employed.  Right  and  left,  in  the  Heb.,  do  not 
mean  merely  right  hand  and  left  hand,  but  the  words  are  more 
cr<ncric,  i.  e.,  right  side  or  quarter,  etc.  —  \  often  marks  the 
2?lace  where,  as  nrsb ,  at  the  door,  etc.  —  nb ,  as  often  elsewhere, 
means  understanding,  because  the  heart  was  regarded  as  the 
Beat  of  it,  not  the  bra/'//,  as  with  us.  Sentiment:  'A  wise  man 
will  use  his  understanding  dexterously,  so  as  often  to  profit  him- 
self; a  fool  employs  his  to  no  purpose,  or  to  a  bad  one.'  Evi- 
dently, the  same  subject  as  before  is  in  the  writer's  mind.     The 


ECCLESIASTES    X.  3,4.  303 

superiority  of  wisdom  to  folly  is  rendered  more  conspicuous  still 
by  what  follows. 

(3)  And  even  when  a  fool  walketh  by  the  way  his  understanding  is  lack- 
ing, and  he  saith  of  every  one  :  He  is  a  fool. 

Further  exhibitions  of  folly.  There  is  an  unusual  inversion 
of  order  here  in  the  Hebrew  :  Even  on  the  way,  when  the  fool  is 
walking,  etc.  The  meaning,  however,  is  the  same  as  that  above 
given.  —  Tp^a,  with  the  article  because  it  is  in  such  a  case 
equivalent  to  the  surf,  pronoun  i,  —  his,  i.  e.,  it  is  definite.  In 
ba&ntlJS)  the  vowels  are  adapted  to  the  Qeri,  which  omits  the  <i 
(article).  But  there  is  no  need  of  this.  — bz'D  is  the  same  fool 
mentioned  in  the  preceding  verse,  and  therefore,  as  a  renewed 
mention,  may  claim  the  article.  —  ura  =  1tt}Ka ,  as  before.  Walks 
by  the  way;  the  meaning  is  not  while  he  is  on  a  journey,  but  while 
going  about  in  the  way  of  intercourse  with  men  is  meant.  In 
6uch  a  case,  he  leaves  his  heart  (understanding)  behind  (^O^). 
"TOK,  says,  but  here  says  internally  =  thinks  or  supposes.  — Vab, 
with  the  article,  means  each  specific  individual  in  this  case. 
When  generic,  or  signifying  totality,  it  also  takes  the  article ; 
just  as  6  deros  means  a  particular  eagle  in  distinction  from  other 
eagles,  and  also  the  genus  eagle  in  distinction  from  other  genera 
of  birds.  —  K*lFl  bsD  are  the  words  which  he  speaks,  or  rather 
what  he  thinks  respecting  every  one  that  he  meets.  It  is  a  con- 
spicuous proof  of  his  folly  that  he  deems  himself  to  be  wise, 
and  every  one  else  to  be  a  fool.  This  is  another  dash  of  color- 
ing, which  makes  the  picture  more  glowing. 

(4)  If  the  spirit  of  a  ruler  riseth  up  against  thee,  forsake  not  thy  standing, 
for  gentleness  appeaseth  great  oftenees. 

n*"i  here  means  spirit,  in  the  like  sense  that  we  give  to  the 
word  when  we  say  :  '  He  replied  with  much  spirit/  An  excited 
or  indignant  state  of  the  mind  is  really  meant.     But  the  ruler, 

who  is  he?     The   answer  seems  to  be:  'The  same  ruler  as  the 


304  ECCLESIASTES    X.   5,6. 

d^&3a  bttjia  above, in  9  :  17.  Meaning:  If,  then, a  foolish  ruler 
gets  angry  with  thee,  do  not  forsake  thy  steadfastness.  Forsake 
not  thy  standing,  tpaipE,  lit.  station,  place  on  which  one  stands. 
Here  figuratively,  t.  e.,  it  designates  stability,  sober  consideration, 
self-possession.  —  KQ"^?  means,  what  is  soothing,  i.  e.,  gentleness  of 
demeanor,  in  the  present  case,  exhibiting  no  signs  of  anger  or 
excitement.  —  H"->  Hiph.  of  ritt,  see  Lex.  to  quiet,  tranquillize, 
or  appease.  Great  offences,  i.  e.,  such  as  the  angry  ruler  deems 
great.  Even  he,  although  foolish,  may  usually  be  appeased  by 
firmness  and  gentleness. 

(5)  There  is  an  evil  I  have  seen  under  the  sun,  as  an  error  which  proceeds 
from  a  prince. 

Further  confirmation  as  to  what  a  foolish  ruler  may  do,  and 
often  does.  Coheleth  calls  it  an  evil,  and  with  good  reason.  To 
designate  his  special  meaning,  he  goes  on  to  show  from  what 
quarter  the  evil  comes.  It  is  such  an  error  as  can  proceed  only 
from  a  ruler.  After  evil,  the  Heb.  omits  "itSX  as  being  of  course 
implied ;  I  have  done  the  same  in  the  version.  As  the  error, 
the  3 ,  says  Hitzig,  is  Kaph  veritatis,  and  if  so,  we  may  render 
thus :  verily  an  error,  etc.  But  I  apprehend  that  this  does  not 
give  the  exact  meaning  of  the  Hebrew.  The  writer  means  to 
say  that  the  evil  in  question  is  such  an  error  as  rulers  only  can 
commit.  —  &ts'*d ,  contracted  from  the  fern.  Part,  nx:^ ,  and  so 
agreeing  with  the  fern.  nw$.  —  h3s!?73,  lit.  from  the  face  of,  from 
the  presence  of  But  this  word  is  often  used  in  the  same  way,  at 
least  with  the  same  meaning  as  the  simple  )& ,  which  designates 
the  cause  or  source  whence  this  or  that  springs :  see  Lex.  E.  F. 
2.     We  shall  soon  see  what  the  error  in  question  is. 

(G)  Folly  is  placed  in  many  high  stations,  and  the  rich  sit  in  degradation. 

Folly  is  placed,  the  abstract  for  concrete,  folly  for  fools.  That 
the  plural  is  meant  is  shown  by  the  plur.  antithesis,  d*r»ttS3>. 
By  this  last  word  is  meant  not.  so  much  the  wealthy  merely,  as 


ECCLESIASTICS    X.  7,8.  305 

those  in  a  flourishing  and  elevated  condition.     Comp.  1   Sam. 

2  ;  7,  8.  — ^Bi?3j  in  a  loir  place,  in  a  state  of  degradation.  The 
sudden  elevation  of  persons  in  a  low  condition  to  office  under  an 
eastern  despot  is  a  transaction  that  occurs  almost  every  day; 
and  on  the  other  hand,  the  degradation  of  those  in  office,  lbr  the 
sake  of  confiscating  their  property,  is  equally  frequent  in  the 
eastern  world.  This  oppression,  and  avarice,  and  selfishness, 
Coheleth  deems  to  be  a  grave  error,  and  the  whole  affords  addi- 
tional evidence  that  "  one  sinner  can  destroy  much  good." 

(7)  I  have  seen  servants  upon  horses,  and  princes  walking  as  servants  on 
the  ground. 

This  is  only  another  method  of  illustrating  what  he  had  just 
said.  Servants  are  promoted  to  office,  and  ride  forth  in  state ; 
for  horses  are  used  in  the  East  principally  by  the  rich  and 
nobles.  On  the  other  hand,  they  who  once  were  princes  are 
now  cast  down,  and  obliged  to  take  the  place  and  attitude  of 
servants,  who  walk  on  the  ground,  and  hold  the  bridle  of  him 
who  rides.     Everything  is  varcpov  irporcpov. 

(8)  He  who  diggeth  a  ditch  may  fall  into  it;  he  who  hreakcth  down  a 
wall,  a  serpent  may  bite  him. 

This  looks  simply  like  something  merely  apothegmatic ;  and 
in  fact  it  is  somewhat  difficult  to  discover  its  connection  with  the 
context.  Merely  to  designate  the  ordinary  business  of  digging 
a  ditch  or  pulling  down  a  wall,  we  can  hardly  suppose  this  to  be 
intended.  The  meaning  is,  that  when  one  digs  a  ditch  or  pit- 
fall for  the  annoyance  or  destruction  of  others,  he  may  chance  to 
share  himself  in  their  intended  fate ;  not  that  he  certainly  will 
fall  into  it,  for  this  cannot  be  true  in  such  a  universal  sense. 
Accordingly  I  have  translated  by  may  fall  —  may  bite,  etc.  So 
the  pulling  down  a  wall  implies  some  unlawful  destruction  of  the 
hedge  or  fence.  In  doing  this,  the  serpents  which  lodge  in  the 
chinks  of  the  wall  may  bite  him.  —  "j'^-a,  properly  a  participial 

2G* 


306  ECCLESIASTES    X.   9,  10. 

noun  of  Pual,  so  that  the  doubling  of  the  middle  radical  (a)  here 
is  normal.  The  *i  is  merely  orthographic,  being  short  here  by 
reason  of  the  Daghesh,  and  not  a  proper  Shureq.  —  ^STB?,  Im- 
perf.  Kal.  of  ^03 ,  with  sun°.  *i- . 

(9)  He  who  plucketh  up  stones  shall  he  annoyed  by  them;  he  who  cleav- 
eth  wood  shall  he  endangered  thereby. 

I  do  not  find  any  authority  for  Gesenius's  excidit  lapides,  as 
the  meaning  of  trass  51&H .  The  verb  SD3  means  to  pluck  up, 
e.  g.,  trees,  vines,  tents,  etc.,  and  in  connection  with  the  last 
meaning,  to  move  from  an  encampment,  etc.  The  action  here 
which  annoys,  seems  to  be  the  pulling  out  of  stones  from  their 
beds  in  the  earth,  which  often,  being  rough,  and  being  laid  hold 
of  incautiously  in  order  to  pull  them  out,  annoy  the  persons  con- 
cerned in  the  labor.  So  the  splitting  of  wood  (d-ass ,  plur.  in 
Heb.)  brings  one  into  danger  who  does  not  manage  with  skill. 
■}d&?  is  a  doubtful  word.  Its  meaning  in  Kal  is  to  dwell  with. 
It  is  found  in  Niphal  only  in  the  case  before  us.  It  seems  best 
explained  by  the  Chaldee  "jdD ,  to  expose  to  danger,  naso ,  danger. 
Hitzig  and  Ges.  derive  it  from  "pSto,  coidter,  and  so  they  con- 
sider it  as  a  denominative  verb,  meaning  to  cut.  Possible  ;  but 
hardly  probable.  The  other  method  is  more  obvious  and  satis- 
factory. 

The  last  two  verses  seem  designed  to  show  how  numerous  the 
dangers  and  exposures  to  harm  are,  even  in  the  common  occu- 
pations of  life,  and  how  important,  therefore,  that  wisdom  should 
be  present  as  a  guide  in  all  of  them.  The  cases  here  stated  are 
not  designed  to  be  statements  of  things  that  uniformly  and  of 
necessity  occur,  but  such  as  need  wisdom  or  dexterity  to  avoid 
all  evil  consequences  that  might  easily  ensue.  If  so,  they  help 
to  elevate  wisdom  at  the  expense  of  folly;  and  this  stands  in 
accordance  with  the  writer's  aim. 

(10)  If  one  lias  dulled  the  iron,  and  there  is  no  edge,  he  swings  [it]  that 
lie  may  increase  the  force  ;   an  advantage  is  the  dexterous  use  of  wisdom. 


EC  CLE  SI  AST  ES    X.    11.  307 

Here  the  object  of  the  writer  comes  out  fully,  i.  c,  to  show 
the  advantage  of  making  a  dexterous  use  of  wisdom.  The  dex- 
terity here,  in  case  of  a  tool  that  is  dulled,  consists  in  so  swing- 
ing it  and  increasing  its  force,  as  still  to  make  it  cut.  —  Ftinjj  is 
to  be  dull;  ttnj?,  Piel,  is  to  make  dull,  or  (as  we  say)  to  dull. 
The  Nom.,  then,  is  the  indef.  one,  and  btisri  is  in  the  Ace. 
tnttTttb ,  no  faces,  i.  e.,  no  edges,  or  without  edge  (see  Lex.  No.  4)  ; 
like  DTn-x^>,  childless,  1  Chron.  2:30,32.  —  D^3Q  means  the 
front  part  of  anything,  which,  in  a  cutting  instrument,  is  the 
edge.  —  b^bp,  Pilpel  of  bb^,  to  move  hither  and  thither;  see 
Ezek.  21  :  26,  where  this  is  plain.  The  notion  of  polishing  or 
sharpening  has  no  etymological  ground  of  support.  The  other 
meaning  is  supported  by  the  Arabic  and  Aethiopic.  If  this  be 
admitted,  the  pause-accent  should  be  placed  on  tP2Q ,  and  not  on 
^j5bj5.  This  last  is  in  the  Perf.,  which  may  be  rendered  as 
Pres.  (§  124,  3),  he  swings  [it]  that  he  may  increase  the  force  or 
power.  When  the  Ace.  is  placed  before  the  verb  (as  ta^nj  is 
here),  then  the  1,  which  belongs  to  the  verb  and  affects  the  sense 
of  it,  still  has  the  same  power  that  it  would  have  if  the  verb 
immediately  followed  it.  So  here  :  that  he  may  increase,  etc.,  1 , 
that,  §  152,  B.  e.  —  "nirstt,  Inf.  abs.  nominascens,  but  retaining 
its  power  of  governing  the  Ace.  ^r*}  •  By  this  last  clause  we 
have  the  key  put  into  our  hands  which  will  unlock  vs.  8 — 10. 
In  all  cases  of  difficulty,  embarrassment,  or  danger  in  the  com- 
mon business  of  life,  a  dexterous  use  of  wisdom  is  indispensable 
to  safety  and  success.  To  the  same  purpose  Hitzig  explains  our 
text,  and,  as  it  seems  to  me,  with  satisfactory  reasons.  Whoever 
is  curious  to  see  the  variety  of  opinions  that  have  been  given, 
may  consult  Knobel  in  loc. 

(11)  If  the  serpent  bite  without  enchantment,  then  is  there  no  advantage 
to  him  who  hath  a  tongue. 

urr-rrj,  with  the  article,  because  it  refers  to  the  serpent  men- 
tioned in  v.  8.     The  idea  conveyed  by  the  verse  is  built  on  the 


308  ECCLESIASTES    X  .   12,  13. 

universal  belief  of  the  East  (partly  founded  on  fact)  that  ser- 
pents can  be  charmed  so  as  to  render  them  harmless.  It  is  done 
every  day  at  Cairo,  and  has  been  witnessed  by  Mr.  Lane,  a 
most  intelligent  and  recent  English  traveller.  —  fj&,  Imperf. 
Kal.  from  fpBjl.  Without  enchantment ;  i.  e.,  if  a  serpent  bite 
because  he  is  not  enchanted  (for  if  he  were  enchanted  he  would 
not  bite)  then  there  is  lack  of  wisdom  which  might  have  pre- 
vented the  bite.  The  writer  has  also  conveyed  this  last  senti- 
ment in  another  way.  It  was  only  the  wise,  it  would  seem,  who 
were  able  to  enchant;  comp.  Ps.  58  :  6 ;  Is.  3  :  3.  "When  a 
man  had  not  wisdom  to  use  his  tongue  so  as  to  render  harmless 
the  serpent,  then  no  advantage  accrued  to  him  from  being  bra 
yfafert,  the  possessor  of  a  tongue;  like  ?p3  ^?3j  Prov.  1  :  17, 
possessor  of  a  wing  =:  winged.  In  other  words,  even  the  most 
distinguished  members  of  the  body  are  comrjaratively  useless 
without  wisdom  to  direct  their  use.  This  verse,  therefore,  is  of 
the  same  tenor  as  the  preceding  verses.  That  the  tongue  was 
specially  employed  in  enchantment,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that 
this  mostly  consists  of  cantillating  certain  forms  of  exorcism. 
The  Greeks  called  a  man  who  performed  this  work  c7raoiSos, 
cantiUator.  Although  the  serpent  cannot  understand  the  exor- 
cism, he  is,  as  experience  shows,  operated  on  by  the  power  of 
the  music,  for  he  will  leave  his  lurking-place  to  come  out  and 
hear  it. 

(12)  The  words  of  the  Avise  man's  mouth  are  favor :  but  the  lips  of  the 
fool  destroy  him. 

Favor,  h,n,  i.  e.,  are  such  as  procure  favor;  they  are  goodly 
words,  such  as  conciliate  favor.  The  lips  of  a  fool,  not  his  literal 
lips,  but  what  they  utter,  i.  e.,  the  words.  —  r*r-:'2,  the  reg.  plur. 
in  const,  state,  instead  of  the  dual  ^rsb,  Ps.  45  :  3,  for  a  like 
usage.  Destroy  him  need  not  be  taken  in  its  full  and  literal 
Bense,  but  in  that  of  doing  much  injury. 

(13)  The  beginning  of  the  words  of  his  mouth  is  folly,  and  the  ending  of 
hi*  mouth  i-  Grievous  madness. 


ECCLESIASTES    X.   14,15.  309 

This  gives  a  reason  for  what  was  affirmed  in  the  preceding 
verse.  From  beginning  to  end,  he  plays  the  Cool  in  all  that  he 
says.  What  he  utters  is  foil},  and  oftentimes  even  a  madness 
which  is  mischievous  (i"J3p)  to  himself.  Not  until  this  mischief 
overtakes  him  will  he  cease  prating;  it  will  be  well  if  he  does 
then.  The  ending  of  his  mouth  is  an  abridged  form  for  the  words 
of  his  mouth,  as  in  the  preceding  clause,  which  is  in  part  omitted 
in  order  to  avoid  repetition. 

(14)  The  fool  multiplies  words,  when  no  man  can  know  what  shall  be  ; 
for  what  shall  be  after  him,  who  can  tell  ? 

Although  much  speaking  leads  to  the  utterance  of  many  fool- 
ish things  (5  :  2,  C),  yet  the  fool  indulges  in  it,  and  this  even 
when  neither  he  nor  any  one  else  can  tell  what  mischievous  con- 
sequences will  follow.  For  ivhen,  there  is  no  special  word  in  the 
original ;  but  the  connection  of  S^-fctb  shows  that  such  a  mean- 
ing  is  implied.  —  l^&y,  for  what,  §  152,  B.  c.  After  Mm,  or 
after  it,  viz.,  the  utterance  of  many  words.  There  is  no  important 
difference  between  the  two.  The  first  is  the  most  simple  and 
obvious.  The  reasoning  stands  thus :  He  must  be  a  fool  who 
utters  things  that  may  have  mischievous  consequences  which 
none  can  foretell. 

(15)  The  toil  of  fools  wearies  them,  because  they  know  not  how  to  go  to 
the  city. 

But  may  not  toil  weary  others  who  do  know  how  to  go  thither  ? 
Assuredly  it  may,  if  there  be  much  of  it ;  but  here  the  case  is 
supposed  of  a  man  who  toils  much  in  order  to  get  to  the  city, 
and  does  this  because  he  is  so  foolish  as  not  to  know  how  to  get 
there  in  a  direct  way.  —  W?*5*Jj  in  Piel,  but  fern.,  whilst  feas,  the 
subject,  is  generally  masc.  Perhaps  n  here  assumes  the  place 
of  *"  prefix  formative,  which  would  regularly  be  ""^  (see  §  69, 
2),  for  the  sake  of  a  more  euphonic  pronunciation.  So  Hitzig. 
The  true  solution  doubtless  is  that  a  large  number  of  nouns  in 


310  ECCLESIASTES    X.   1G. 

Heb.  with  the  masc.  form,  have  a  fern,  gender ;  and  quite  a 
considerable  number  are  both  masc.  and  fern.,  ad  libitum  scripto- 
ris.  Ewald  (Gramm.)  has  collected  a  great  mass  of  both 
these  in  §  174.  Cases  of  fern.,  like  &PS  are  Dir,  nrn,  xns,  daPB, 
etc.  Of  course  all  difficulty  vanishes  by  the  aid  of  this  consider- 
ation, and  ^"r^n  is  reg.  Piel  Imperf.  fern.  The  sing.  suff.  here, 
siS- ,  is  either  generic,  and  so  can  accord  ad  sensum,  with  D^Vba , 
or  else  it  individualizes,  and  signifies  that  each  and  every  fool  is 
wearied  in  the  manner  described.  The  same  in  respect  to  s"i^ , 
which  is  sing.,  t.  e.,  no  fool  knows,  etc.  Knows  not  how  to  go  into 
the  city  is  doubtless  a  proverbial  saying  descriptive  of  fools.  So 
we  may  say  of  a  man :  '  He  has  not  wit  enough  to  travel  on  a 
broad,  open  highway'  (for  such  are  the  ways  leading  to  a  city). 
This  is  only  a  satirical  but  covert  description  of  a  fool.  The 
labor  of  a  man  who  has  not  wit  or  knowledge  enough  to  keep 
the  broad  thoroughfare  to  a  city  may  well  be  supposed  to  weary 
him.  Literally  the  thing  is  not  intended  to  be  taken.  What  is 
meant  is,  that  when  a  man  is  a  fool,  he  does  a  great  many  things 
that  weary  him  and  worry  him,  in  consequence  of  his  being  so. 
A  little  sound  wisdom  would  save  such  a  one  much  trouble. 
Here,  again,  the  preference  of  wisdom  over  folly  comes  into 
view. 

(1G)  Woe  to  thee,  O  land,  for  thy  king  is  a  youth,  and  thy  princes  feast 
in  the  morning. 

The  meaning  of  the  word  ISO  is  not  limited  by  a  particular 
year.  Any  one  short  of  some  twenty-five  to  thirty  years  of  age 
may  be  so  named.  However,  in  the  present  case  the  probability 
is  that  one  who  is  yet  a  child,  a  lad  (as  we  say)  is  meant ;  at  any 
rate,  one  who,  through  inexperience  and  a  bad  education,  is  in- 
clined to  sensual  indulgences.  For  thy  in  both  cases  may  be 
substituted  whose.  This  would  make  the  meaning  less  specific: 
whereas  1  apprehend  from  the  tenor  of  the  book,  and  the  fre- 
quent and  loud  complaints  against  oppressive  rulers,  that  the 


ECCLESIASTICS    X  .    17.  311 

author's  design  is  specific.  This  is  bold,  then,  but  not  bolder 
than  the  Hebrew  prophets  in  general  are.     Princes  feast  in  ih"- 

moming,  therefore  at  a  very  untimely  and  improper  season  ;  see 
Is.  5:11,  and  comp.  Acts  2  :  15.  This  shows  what  devotees  to 
sensuality  the  shameless  rulers  were. 

(17)  All  hail  to  thee,  O  land,  when  thy  king  is  the  son  of  nobles,  and  thy 
princes  feast  in  proper  season,  for  strength  and  not  for  banqueting. 

As  to  ipfl^M ' smce  tne  pronoun  is/em.,  the  normal  form  would 
be  T^fcJN  ;  but  the  first  form  is  a  mere  contraction  of  the  second, 
which  is  admissible  in  a  case  where  the  gender  of  the  pronoun 
cannot  be  doubtful,  and  no  obscurity  can  arise  from  the  contrac- 
tion. However,  if  land  be  taken  for  people  (which  in  fact  it 
really  means  here),  we  might  take  Tj  as  masc. ;  in  which  case, 
however,  we  must  point  it  TV1-.  All  hail  gives  well  the  sense  of 
the  word.  Hitz. :  Heil  dir!  —  D"nin,  nobles,  from  "inrl,  liber,  in- 
genuus  fuit.  So  in  the  Arabic  and  Syriac.  A  king  of  high 
descent,  the  writer  seems  to  suppose,  will  act  on  a  generous  and 
noble  scale,  and  will  not  feel  such  temptations  to  extortion  as  a 
poor  man  does.  —  nsa  plainly  means,  at  a  proper  time  or  season, 
?'.  e.,  thy  princes  are  not  such  debased  gluttons  or  drunkards  as 
to  carouse  at  improper  seasons.  The  feasting  (lit.  eating)  is 
temperate  ;  for  first,  it  is  in  proper  season;  and  secondly,  it  goes 
not  beyond  the  measure  of  obtaining  nutriment  so  as  to  acquire 
strength.  —  "TUBS,  Ht.  for  drinking,  compotation.  The  banquet- 
drinking,  of  course,  is  meant  here  ;  and  so  I  have  translated  it : 
for  banqueting.  In  the  later  Hebrew  a  is  sometimes  used  in  the 
same  sense  as  b  ;  it  occurs  twice  here.  See  on  2  24.  In  real- 
ity the  a  stands  before  the  thing  obtained  by  commutation  with 
some  other  things  ;  see  2  :  24.  The  food  is  exchanged  to  ac- 
quire, or  is  the  price  of  the  strength.  —  "TUBa,  with  the  article, 
because  it  refers  to  what  was  included  in  the  'featf'1,  which  desig- 
nates both  eating  and  drinking,  t.  e.,  feasting.  The  innumerable 
evils  inflicted  on  a  land  by  gluttonous  and  drunken  rulers,  are 
oo  obvious  to  need  specification. 


312  ECCLESIASTES    .X.    18-20. 

(18)  Through  idleness  the  timber  decayeth,  and  through  slackness  of 
hands  the  house  drizzleth. 

tt^P^j  lit*  beam,  but  generic  here,  and  so  it  means  timber. 
ff»pfcs?,  lit.  by  two  idle  [hands] .  —  Tp??,  Imperf.  Niph.  of  TjM,  to 
dissolve,  pine  away,  decay.  —  CjVrj,  drizzles,  i.  e.,  lets  through  the 
rain,  because  it  is  not  repaired.  Hitz. :  it  rains  into  the  house. 
I  take  the  house  as  the  Nom.  in  this  case,  which  makes  a  sense 
nearer  to  the  meaning  of  the  Heb.  verb,  which  is  used  in  speak- 
ing of  the  eye  when  distilling  tears.  So  the  house  distils  rain  on 
those  within  it,  i.  e.,  drizzles. 

(19)  For  merriment  they  celebrate  the  feast,  and  wine  makes  life  joyful, 
and  money  procures  everything. 

pinbb ,  lit.  for  laughter,  i.  e.,  boisterous  merriment ;  the  h  being 
in  the  place  of  a ,  as,  vice  versa,  a  is  in  the  place  of  \ ;  see  2 
Chron.  20  :  21  ;  1  Chron.  4  :  22  ;  Ps.  102  :  6 ;  Hos.  12:9,  etc. 
D"|£J3> ,  Part,  used  as  a  verb,  does  not  mean  to  make,  i.  e.,  to  man- 
ufacture bread,  but  to  keep  or  celebrate  a  feast  (6:12;  3:12), 
of  which  Gnb ,  the  leading  element  (bread)  is  taken  as  a  repre- 
sentative. Life  joyful,  viz.,  their  life,  i.  e.,  that  of  the  carousing 
rulers.  Money  procures  everything,  lit.  silver  makes  everything 
respond.  The  usual  coin  was  silver.  —  pqag  is  in  Hiphil  Imperf., 
and  so  must  be  rendered  makes  everything  respond,  viz.,  respond 
to  their  wishes,  will  procure  everything  they  wish.  In  other 
words :  Their  golden  key  will  open  all  storehouses,  and  furnish 
them  with  the  choicest  means  of  revelling.  See  on  5:19,  where 
this  word  (m?".?)  is  particularly  explained. 

(20)  Moreover,  in  thy  thoughts  curse  not  the  king,  even  in  thy  bed- 
chamber curse  not  the  rich,  for  the  birds  of  the  air  will  convey  the  report, 
and  the  winged  tribe  will  publish  the  matter. 

That  Lb  (after  all  that  has  been  said  in  the  way  of  exposing 
the  debauchery  and  folly  of  rulers  and  rich  men)  guard  well 
against   indulging  bitter  feelings  of  indignation  and  vengeance 


F.CCLESIASTLS    XI.    1.  313 

toward  them.  It  is  dangerous  to  do  so.  In  some  unforeseen 
way,  what  is  done  in  secret  will  be  brought  before  them  ;  as  if 
the  birds  of  the  air  could  listen  and  make  report.  The  winged 
tribe,  lit.  the  possessor  of  wings.  Both  5)1*  and  b*a  are  generic, 
and  so  they  have  the  article,  which  of  course  must  be  placed  on 
the  following  words  in  the  Gen.  after  a  const,  state,  §  109,  1. 
Here  again  wisdom  or  discretion  is  needed  in  order  to  restrain  a 
just  indignation  where  the  indulgence  of  it  can  do  no  good,  and 
will  almost  with  certainty  occasion  harm. 

It  is  evident  that  the  rulers  of  Coheleth's  time  were  very  sen- 
sual, oppressive,  and  avaricious  men,  who  made  the  land  to  groan 
under  their  yoke.  But  whether  they  were  foreigners  or  Hebrews 
nothing  in  the  text  indicates  with  entire  certainty.  Nothing  is 
said  or  even  hinted  respecting  idolatry  in  the  whole  book.  Is 
not  this  an  indication  that  the  book  was  written  after  the  exile  ? 
All  the  bad  kings  before  the  captivity  were  idolaters ;  and  as 
here  there  is  no  reference  to  this  subject,  nor  any  complaint 
founded  upon  it,  it  would  seem  that  the  rulers  in  question  were 
not  idolaters. 

§  15.    Counsel  in  regard  to  many  inevitable  Evils  of  Life;  spe- 
cially in  regard  to  old  Age  and  Death. 

Chap.  XI.  1— XII.  8. 

[Many  trials  and  evils  must  come,  and  Divine  Providence  has  made  them 
inevitable.  One  should  be  prepared  for  them  as  well  as  lies  within  his 
power,  vs.  1 — 5.  One  should  be  busily  engaged  in  what  is  useful,  and  while 
he  is  permitted  to  be  joyful  lie  should  never  forget  that  the  days  of  sorrow 
will  come,  vs.  6 — 8.  The  season  of  youth  is  specially  fitted  for  enjoyment; 
which,  however,  passes  speedily  away,  and  while  it  lasts  should  be  indulged 
with  reference  to  a.  future  retribution,  vs.  9,  10.  The  Creator  should  be  re- 
membered in  youthful  days,  so  that  when  the  infirmities  and  sorrows  of  old 
age  come,  they  may  be  borne  with  fortitude  and  cheerfulness,  ch  xii.  1 — 8.] 

(1 )  Cast  thy  bread  upon  the  face  of  the  waters  ;  for  after  many  days  thou 
sl;aii  find  it. 

27 


314  ECCLESIASTES    XI.   2. 

Not  in  the  literal  sense  can  this  be  taken  ;  for  literal  bread 
cast  upou  the  waters  soon  disappears,  being  disintegrated.  The 
meaning  seems  to  be  :  Give  up  the  cherishing  of  definite  and 
specific  expectations  of  ample  support  {r^znb,  here  the  image  or 
symbol  of  all  needed  good)  ;  leave  the  future  to  care  for  itself, 
but  still  with  a  hope  that  in  due  time,  although  this  time  may  be 
protracted,  you  will  experience  what  you  reasonably  desire.  He 
does  not  encourage  those  whom  he  is  admonishing  to  hope  always 
for  immediate  success  or  relief;  but  only  that  after  many  days, 
or  (lit.)  within  much  of  time,  the  expectants  may  come  to  have 
their  wishes  satisfied.  The  amount  of  all  seems  to  be  this  :  '  It 
is  better  to  forbear  the  forming  and  cherishing  of  definite  and 
confident  hopes,  since  this  will  save  us  from  harassing  disappoint- 
ments. Leave  all  to  Providence.  In  due  time,  what  we  hope 
for  may  come  to  pass. 

(2)  Make  a  portion  into  seven,  and  even  into  eight,  for  thou  knowest  not 
the  evil  which  shall  be  on  earth. 

nrn"3  p5n— ,n  means  make  or  constitute  a  portion  into  seven 
[portions].  See  Gen.  32  :  8,  9.  —  pbn  is  not  a  part  of  a  whole, 
but  a  portion  or  appropriation  more  or  less.  Here  the  meaning 
is,  divide  what  you  obtain  or  possess  in  such  a  way  as  not  to  risk 
all  in  one  adventure  ;  or,  as  a  seaman  would  say  :  '  Risk  not  all 
your  goods  in  one  ship.'  Into  seven  —  seven  what  ?  If  men  or 
persons  were  meant,  we  should  expect  them  to  be  named.  As 
the  text  now  is,  we  must  find  a  noun  to  agree  with  the  adj.  num- 
ber seven ;  and  what  other  does  the  text  afford,  except  n^n  ? 
Therefore  "ft  cannot  here  mean  give,  i.  e.,  to  another,  but  j>/(f, 
place,  constitute,  etc.  Thou  hnowest  not  the  evil,  etc.  The  11(d)., 
as  it  stands,  seems  to  read  thus:  'Thou  knowest  not  what  shall 
be  [viz.],  the  evil  on  earth.'  In  this  way  thou  hnowest  not  must 
be  mentally  supplied  before  insn.  Sentiment:  'I  have  advised 
against  definite  and  confident  hopes  ;  I  also  advise  that  you  em- 
bark not  too  much  on  any  one  pursuit  ;   tor  if  this  fails,  then  ail 


ECCL  KM  A  ST  is    \  I  .  :;,  l.  315 

is  lost.'  The  addition  of  one  to  the  seven,  %.  e.,  the  mention  of 
eighty  is  a  customary  mode  of  speech  among-  the  Hebrews.  This 
idiom  is  peculiarly  and  forcibly  exhibited  in  Amos  1  :  3  seq. 

(3)  When  the  clouds  are  filled  with  rain  they  empty  [it]  on  the  earth  ; 
ami  when  a  tree  falleth  toward  the  south  or  toward  the  north,  in  the  place 
where  the  tree  falleth  there  it  will  he. 

That  is,  the  great  operations  and  events  of  nature  are  con- 
trolled by  a  power  above,  and  cannot  be  hindered  or  changed  by 
the  efforts  of  man.  It  is  useless  to  strive  against  them.  Both 
]  tarts  of  the  verse  wear  the  air  of  proverbial  sayings,  which  are 
here  applied  by  the  writer  to  his  particular  purpose.  Clouds  are 
filed,  etc.  In  Job.  38  :  37  it  is  asked  :  u  Who  can  stay  the  bot- 
tles of  heaven  ?  "  This  gives  the  popular  idea  of  the  formation,  or 
rather  the  collection  of  rain-showers,  and  on  this  view  is  founded 
the  expression  before  us  of  being  filled.  —  ^ft?,  Imperf.  Niph., 
rather  than  Praeter,  because  what  is  habitually  done  is  here  des- 
ignated. —  Diaa,  Ace.  after  the  verb  of  filling,  §  135, 3,  b.  —  np^j 
Hiph.  Imperf.  of  p*F\,  The  pronoun  ^corresponding  to  ram, is 
of  course  implied  here.  —  b"iEP  DK,  when,  etc.,  see  Lex.  s.  v.  No. 
4.  —  ci-nn,  lit.  ire  the  south,  i.  e.,  in  a  southern  direction.  We 
say  toward  in  such  a  case.  —  D-Ipp ,  Ace.  of  place,  and  in  reg. 
before  ri  =  -«&»,  §  114,  2.  —  TOK,  where,  Lex.  s.  v.  No.  G. 
Kirn,  apoc.  Imperf.  of  rrn  =  rnn.  The  K  is  otiant  and  merely 
orthographical.  —  siirp  corresponds  to  IJTH  apoc. 

(4)  He  who  wateheth  the  wind  will  not  sow;  and  he  who  obscrvcth  the 
clouds  will  not  reap. 

That  is,  what  God  has  arranged  we  cannot  alter,  nor  can  we 
foretell  what  he  will  do.  The  husbandman,  if  he  wait  for  the 
wind  to  come  into  what  he  deems  a  favorable  quarter  before  he 
ventures  to  sow,  may  not  sow  in  good  time.  If  he  depends  on 
the  appearance  of  the  clouds,  and  regards  them  as  ominous  of 
evil,  i.  e.,  of  bad  weather,  then,  by  delaying  to  sow  in  due  time, 


316  ECCLESIASTES    XI.   5,6. 

he  will  not  reap  a  harvest.  One  must  go  straight  forward  in  his 
duty,  and  not  make  this  dependent  on  slight  circumstances  and 
uncertain  omens.  —  HTi ,  wind;  we  should  expect  the  article,  but 
the  word  is  here  used  in  a  kind  of  generic  way  which  would  be 
shown  by  striking  out  the  in  the  version,  but  which  corresponds 
not  with  our  mode  of  expression.  In  this  case  the  Hebrew  has 
the  advantage,  rn"l  =  any  wind.  —  BTC39%i  with  the  article,  being 
the  name  of  a  class  of  specific  objects  in  nature. 

(5)  As  thou  knowest  not  what  is  the  way  of  the  wind,  or  the  bones  in  the 
womb  of  her  avIio  is  with  child,  so  thou  knowest  not  the  work  of  God,  who 
doeth  all  things. 

As  thou  knowest  not  what  is  the  way  of  the  windihou  canst 
gain  nothing  by  watching  it.  The  next  clause  is  elliptical,  thou 
knowest  not  being  implied  and  mentally  carried  forward  from  the 
preceding  clause,  and  inserted  after  3.  The  bones  in  the  womb, 
etc. ;  i.  e.,  the  bones  of  the  foetus,  which  are  in  a  state  of  forma- 
tion in  the  womb.  —  PJS&an,  the  pregnant,  like  the  Latin  gravida 
jolena,  and  the  Greek  TrXrjpovv  ywcuxa.  —  )"J=5 ,  even  so,  so  so,  in- 
tensive. Sentiment :  '  As  thou  art  confessedly  ignorant  of  such 
matters  as  these,  so  thou  art  in  reality  ignorant  of  what  God 
does,  who  does  everything.' 

(6)  In  the  morning  sow  thy  seed,  and  at  evening  withhold  not  thy  hand, 
for  thou  knowest  not  which  shall  prosper,  whether  this  or  that,  or  whether 
they  both  shall  be  alike  good. 

That  is,  since  these  things  are  so,  go  on  in  the  regular  way  of 
duty  and  activity,  and  leave  the  rest  with  God.  Morning  and 
evening  are  mentioned  as  the  times  of  sowing ;  i.  e.,  the  former 
and  latter  part  of  the  day,  because  these  are  the  laboring  hours 
in  Palestine,  inasmuch  as  the  heat  of  the  sun  obliges  laborers  to 
retreat  during  four  or  five  hours  of  the  middle  of  the  day.  —  nsn, 
Iliph.  of  rVD,  see  Lex.  —  hi  ^x,  strengthened  sign  of  an  inter- 
rogative position  of  the  pronoun.  —  "X  is  const,  of  ■'X  before  hi, 


ECCLESIASTES    XI.   7,8.  317 

and  both  of  them  merely  make  out  a  pronoun  equivalent  in  this 
place  to  which.  —  htn  is  ht  with  the  interrogative,  n  before  it, 
whether  this,  viz.,  shall  prosper ;  and  so  as  to  the  other  nt,  al- 
though the  interrogative  sign  is  omitted  before  it,  as  being  un- 
necessary. —  ^HiO,  as  one,  i.  e.,  alike,  equally  (so  to  speak),  onely. 
dMft,  in  a  second  disjunctive  member  of  successive  interrogative 
clauses,  is  the  usual  interrogative  sign  after  r^  in  the  first  clause. 
See  Lex.  B.  The  Hebrew  construction  in  the  last  clause,  if 
filled  out,  would  run  thus  :  Or  whether  both  of  them  shall  be  good 
as  one  [of  them  is],  i.  e.,  alike  good.  Sentiment:  '  Do  your  duty, 
and  trust  Providence  for  the  issue.' 

(7)  For  the  light  is  sweet,  and  pleasant  is  it  to  the  eyes  to  sec  the  sun. 

The  *i  at  the  beginning  introduces  a  species  of  causal  clause, 
and  is  often  employed  in  like  manner,  §  152,  B.  c.  This  is  a 
reason,  then,  why  one  should  industriously  provide  for  life  as  he 
had  just  been  advised  to  do  With  all  its  evils  life  intermingles 
many  enjoyments.  As  only  the  living  can  see  the  sun,  it  may 
be  taken  here  as  "  the  light  of  life."  Light  stands  connected  with 
enjoyment.     So  Eurip.  Iphig.  in  Aulis,  v.  1218  :  fj&b  yap  to  <f>u>s 

(8)  But  if  a  man  should  live  many  years,  let  him  rejoice  in  all  of  them  ; 
yet  let  him  remember  the  days  of  darkness,  for  they  will  be  many.  All  that 
comcth  [into  the  world]  is  vanity. 

BTOli  with  the  article,  to  designate  an  individual  particular 
man  and  not  the  genus,  although  what  is  said  might  apply  to  all. 
We  say  a  man,  in  such  a  case,  i.  e.,  any  or  every  individual  man  ; 
which  in  Hebrew  would  be  nnx'bs.  —  rroto},  hortative,  let  Jtim 
rejoice,  not  and  should  rejoice.  The  writer,  then,  is  no  gloomy, 
luckless  wight,  brooding  constantly  over  the  evils  of  life,  and 
never  looking  except  upon  the  dark  side  of  the  picture.  lie 
advises  to  enjoy  all  that  we  can  rationally  enjoy.  But  still,  we 
must  never  forget  that  we  have  to  suffer,  as  well  as  to  act  and 

27* 


318  ECCLESIASTICS     XI.    9. 

enjoy.  The  days  of  darkness,  i.  e.,  of  suffering  and  sorrow,  will 
come,  and  will  be  many.  The  reason  of  this  is  adverted  to  in 
the  last  brief  clause.  All  that  cometh  is  vanity,  i.  e.,  all  that 
come  into  the  world  ;  comp.  1  :  4,  ixn  nin ,  generation  cometh  into 
the  world.  Or  we  may  make  K3  a  participial  noun,  every  comer, 
which  of  course  means  every  one  who  is  born.  Since  this  is  the 
case,  viz.,  that  all  who  come  into  the  world  are  destined  to  a 
course  of  trial  by  suffering  and  sorrow,  there  is  reason  or  ground 
for  expecting  days  of  darkness,  even  many  of  them. 

(9)  Rejoice,  O  young  man,  in  thy  youth,  and  let  thy  heart  cheer  thee  in 
the  days  of  thine  early  life,  and  walk  thou  in  the  way  of  thy  desire,  and  by 
the  sight  of  thine  eyes  ;  but  know  thou  that  respecting  all  these  God  will 
bring  thee  into  judgment. 

In  v.  8  he  had  said  that  one  should  rejoice  during  all  the  many 
years  that  he  may  live.  Here  he  specificates  that  portion  of  life 
when  enjoyment  is  most  attainable.  Therefore  the  young  man 
(for  such  a  one  has  special  ability  to  comply  with  his  injunction) 
is  particularly  exhorted  to  do  so.  In  thy  youth,  i.  e.,  during  thy 
youth ;  not  that  youth  is  the  object  to  be  rejoiced  in,  but  the 
season  for  joy.  Walk  in  the  ways  of  thy  desire,  lit.  of  thy  heart, 
which  is  the  seat  of  desire.  —  "WTOM ,  as  written  and  pointed, 
would  indicate  things  seen;  the  Qeri  reads  ns-i^a ,  i.  e.,  the  const, 
state  of  the  sing.,  and  meaning  sight  or  seeing.  This  is  doubtless 
the  correct  reading ;  for  the  seeing  of  the  eyes  is  what  excites 
desire  in  man,  and  thus  influences  his  whole  conduct.  In  other 
words  :  '  Whatever  thou  seest  and  desirest  which  would  increase 
thy  happiness,  enjoy  it.  But  know  well,  i.  e.,  remember  in  the 
midst  of  all  thine  enjoyment,  that  God  will  bring  thee  into  judg- 
ment for  the  manner  in  which  everything  of  this  nature  is  ac- 
complished.' The  purport  of  the  last  clause  maybe  stated  thus: 
1  Abuse  not  his  blessings  and  thy  comforts  or  pleasures.  He  will 
surely  call  thee  to  an  account  for  all  that  thou  doest.'  In  this 
world  ?  or  in  the  next  ?     Ilitzig  says :  In  the  first ;  and  so  he 


ECCLESTASTES    XT.    10.  .110 

refers  to  old  age  as  the  season  of  judgment  and  retribution.  The 
true  state  of  this  matter,  in  the  book  before  us,  I  have  endeav- 
ored to  investigate  in  my  remarks  on  3  :  17  above. 

(10)  Put  away  vexation  from  thy  heart,  and  remove  evil  from  thy  flesh, 
for  youth,  like  the  morning-dawn,  is  vanity. 

Put  away  from  thy  heart,  because  the  heart  is  the  seat  or 
source  of  vexation  or  indignation  at  suffering.  Evil  from  thy 
flesh,  that  is,  thy  corporeal  physical  frame.  The  first  precept 
respects  the  mind,  the  second,  the  body;  both  of  these  make  up 
self,  or  the  entire  man.  The  two  verbs  are  in  Hiph.  Imper. 
apoc,  because  they  are  hortative.  The  paragogic  forms  in  Hiph. 
belong  only  to  the  1st.  pers.  sing,  and  plur.  ;  the  others  are  con- 
tracted;  see  §  48,  4.  —  *»fert  from  "no.  This  is  merely  following 
on  in  the  train  of  advice  given  in  v.  9.  There  the  command  is, 
to  do  something  positive  in  the  way  of  enjoyment ;  here  it  is,  to 
shun  or  avoid  evil  and  suffering.  Taking  both  together,  the 
amount  is :  '  Enjoy  all  that  a  sober,  rational  man,  in  view  of  a 
day  of  retribution,  can  enjoy,  and  avoid  all  the  evil  and  suffering 
that  can  be  properly  avoided.'  But  why  is  this  so  strongly  urged 
upon  the  young  ?  Plainly  because  that  even  they,  although  in 
the  best  estate  of  man,  hold  life  by  a  very  frail  tenure.  "  Man 
in  his  best  estate  is  altogether  vanity."  Therefore,  as  even  youth 
is  so  frail  and  evanescent,  make  the  best  of  it  that  can  be  made, 
keeping  a  retribution  always  in  sight.  It  is  almost  as  if  he  said  : 
Then  or  never.  —  n^nrnrrn,  lit.  and  the  early  dawn;  but  the  \ 
here  is  one  of  comparison,  and  hardly  differs  in  meaning  from  s> . 
It  might  be  translated  even.  If  the  sentence  were  filled  out  it 
would  run  thus:  Youth  is  vanity,  and  so  early  dawn  is  vanity; 
i.  e.,  one  is  as  vain  as  the  other.  Hence  the  use  of  1  in  such 
cases,  as  the  connecting  link  between  the  two  parts  of  a  compar- 
ison. Both  the  objects  named  are  equal  to  a  tertium  quid,  and 
therefore  one  is  like  the  other. 

If  a  right  view  of  vs.  8 — 10  has  been  presented,  it  follows  of 


320  ECCLESIASTES    XII.   1. 

course  that  the  exegesis  is  erroneous  which  assumes  that  v.  fJ  is 
sarcastic  or  ironical.  Certainly  this  verse  is  only  a  comment  on 
v.  8,  where  it  is  said  to  every  one,  n?:b?  rfssa ,  i.  e.,  evermore  be 
joyful.  No  one  thinks  of  irony  here.  Again,  in  v.  10  we  have 
a  clear  indication  that  the  advice  in  v.  9  is  serious  and  bona  fide. 
Certainly  there  can  be  no  objection  to  Coheleth's  advice  here, 
associated  as  it  is  with  all  his  cautions ;  none  except  on  the  part 
of  mere  strenuous  ascetics. 


Chap.  XII. 

(1)  Remember  thy  Creator  in  the  days  of  thy  youth,  before  the  days  of 
evil  come,  and  the  years  draw  nigh  when  thou  shalt  say  :  I  have  no  pleasure 
in  them. 

SpX'Yia ,  plur.  like  other  appellations  of  God,  both  nouns  and 
adjectives  ;  see  §  106,  2,  b.  —  sprnwia,  plur.  fern.,  §  106,  2,  a. 
The  plur.  form  comes  from  the  idea  of  an  extended  period. 
Before  the  days  of  evil,  etc.,  lit.  until  that  the  days  of  evil  have 
not  come,  which  would  sound  harshly  in  English.  The  <"J>^ 
with  the  art.  refers  to  the  H:^  of  11  :  10.  Hitzig  finds  in  the 
mention  of  days  and  years  here  evidence  that  the  time  of  retri- 
bution is  the  season  of  old  age,  when  evil  is  wont  to  come ;  for 
as  he  avers,  "  the  dead  have  no  division  of  time."  But  is  this 
his  philosophy,  or  that  of  Coheleth?  Not  of  the  latter,  surely ; 
for  in  the  case  before  us,  both  days  and  years  have  the  same 
meaning  for  substance,  i.  e.,  both  merely  designate  time.  I  am 
aware  that  time  so  divided,  and  philosophically  considered,  is  not 
strictly  predicable  of  a  future  state;  but  still,  the  Scriptures 
speak  everywhere  more  humano,  or  in  the  popular  way  in  regard 
to  the  future.  Ages  of  ages  is  a  frequent  designation  of  it.  That 
th  ■  writer  has  old  age  in  view  in  this  verse,  I  should  freely  ad- 
Bul  1  do  not  sec  how  this  would  affect  the  meaning  of 
11:0:   God  will  bring  thee  into  judgment.     According  to  Hitzig, 


ECCLESIASTES    XII.  2.  321 

this  would  be  merely  equivalent  to  saying  :  '  God  will  make  thee 
to  become  an  old  man.'  But  does  not  the  Old  Test,  everywhere 
reckon  long  life  as  a  blessing?  What  saith  the  fifth  command- 
ment, Ex.  20  :  12  ?  And  yet  this,  if  Hitzig  is  in  the  right,  is 
held  up  mi  terrorem  here,  as  an  indication  of  a  penal  period  or 
process.  This  will  hardly  do.  Old  age  has  indeed  its  sorrows, 
and  they  are  in  some  respects  aggravated  by  increasing  bodily 
weakness,  and  inability  to  endure  or  resist  them.  But  it  has  its 
comforts  too ;  for  "  the  hoary  head  is  a  crown  of  glory,  when 
found  in  the  way  of  righteousness."  The  orthodox,  then,  are 
not  the  only  class  of  critics  (as  Hitzig  sometimes  insinuates) 
who  practise  the  Hineinexegesiren  upon  the  sacred  text.  It 
needed  some  resolution,  at  any  rate,  to  make  up  and  produce 
such  an  argument  as  that  of  Hitzig  now  before  us,  to  show  that 
Coheleth  neither  knew  nor  thought  anything  of  &  future  judg- 
ment. 

Thus  much  is  true,  viz.,  that  the  days  of  evil  here  mentioned 
are  the  days  of  declining  life,  the  infirmities  and  sorrows  of 
which  are  most  vividly  painted  in  the  sequel.  Accumulated  in- 
firmities, with  a  certain  prospect  of  their  increase,  are  sufficient 
to  account  for  the  exclamation  of  the  sufferer  :  I  have  no  pleas- 
ure in  them!  —  VWll.i  Hiph.  Perf.  of  5>«.  —  yzn  .  .  .  •px,  here 
the  const.  *px  has  two  intervening  words  between  itself  and  the 
Gen.  following  and  governing  it.  But  any  intervention  of  this 
kind  must  be  of  circumstantial  words  only.  Otherwise,  the  const, 
and  Gen.  must  be  placed  in  immediate  proximity. 

(2)  Before  the  sun  and  the  light  shall  grow  dark,  and  the  moon  and  the 
stars,  and  the  clouds  return  after  the  rain. 

The  first  part  is  imagery  to  portray  the  joyous  season  of  life. 
Light  is  the  symbol  of  joy.  '  Before  this  light  is  withdrawn, 
do  thou  remember  thy  Creator,'  is  the  sentiment.  But  what  ts 
it  to  remember  him  ?  It  is  to  fear,  to  love,  and  to  obey  him,  ever 
keeping  in  mind  that  he  will  bring  thee  to  judgment.     After 


322  ECCLESIASTES    XII.  3. 

moon  and  stars,  tobrn  (shall  grow  dark)  is  implied  from  the 
preceding  clause.  1  have  joined  the  light  with  the  sun,  because 
the  accents  do  so,  and  because  there  is  ground  to  suppose  that 
the  writer  means  to  present  two  couplets.  The  clouds  return, 
etc. ;  this  happens  only  in  the  winter  or  rainy  season  in  Pales- 
tine. The  summer  showers  are  short  and  violent,  and  are  suc- 
ceeded by  a  blazing  sun.  But  in  winter,  day  after  day  the 
clouds  return,  and  rains  are  often  incessant.  This  season,  then, 
is  the  image  of  old  age,  the  winter  of  life.  We  of  the  present 
time  call  youth  its  spring,  manhood  its  summer,  and  old  age  its 
w inter.  Sentiment:  'Be  mindful  of  God  before  the  days  of 
aggravated  sorrow  come,  before  the  declining  period  or  winter 
of  life  sets  in.'     The  imagery  is  vivid  and  beautiful. 

(3)  In  the  day  when  the  keepers  of  the  house  shall  be  tremulous,  and  the 
strong  men  bow  themselves,  and  the  grinders  pause  because  they  are  become 
few,  and  those  that  look  out  of  the  windows  are  darkened. 

This  verse  is  subordinate  to  the  preceding  one,  Di^a  being 
used  instead  of  repeating  Tdx  iv.  —  wry,  from  g*it,  Imperf.  Kal, 
t  for  sit.  But  who  are  the  keepers  of  the  house?  Evidently  the 
physical  frame  of  the  old  man  is  here  compared  to  a  house,  a 
comparison  of  the  human  frame  often  made  in  the  Old  Test. 
and  in  the  New,  Job  4  :  19  ;  2  Cor.  5  : 1  ;  2  Pet.  1  :  13,  14.  The 
keepers  of  this  house  are  the  arms,  specially  the  hands  and  fore- 
arms, which  often  become  tremulous  in  old  age.  They  are 
called  keepers,  because  they  are  more  specially  employed  in 
warding  off  evil  or  assault.  These  keepers  are  here  regarded  as 
being  out  of  the  house,  not  in  it ;  just  as  the  arms  are  separate 
from  the  body  of  a  man,  and  extraneous  to  it.  And  the  men  of 
strength  bow  themselves,  seems  to  mean  the  legs,  which  are  strong 
in  their  structure,  being  formed  both  to  support  the  body,  and  to 
convey  it  hither  and  thither.  It  needs  strength  to  bear  such  a 
burden  and  perform  such  a  task.  The  bowing  is  the  usual  croak- 
ing at  the  knees  which  takes  place  in  old  age,  because  the  mus- 


ECCLESIASTES    XII.    1. 

cles  are  relaxed,  and  will  not  support   the  weight  of  the  body 
without  bending.     In  war,  to  be  swift   in  tin-  race  of  pursuil 
flight,  and  persevering  in   the  march,  required  greal  Btrength  in 
the  lower  limbs  ;    and   he  who  was  wkvs  7ro'So)j/  was  accounted 
among  the  best  warriors,  /.  e.,  among  the  b^n  *"r:X.     To  say  lh<' 
least,  if  the  appellation  is  not  altogether  congruous  lor  the  I 
it  is  difficult  to  find  any  part  of  a  man  to  which  what  is  said  so 
well  applies.     And  the  grinders  cease  or  pause ;  the  latter  ir,  the 
better  translation,  for  the  pausing  seems  to  be  in  order  to  take 
rest,  since  they  are  overtasked  in  grinding  because  of  their  few- 
ness.    The  teeth  are  doubtless  meant  by  the  grinders;  and  we 
apply  this  word  in  the  same  way  to  the  teeth.     When  a  few  of 
these  have  to  do  all  the  work  of  a  full  set,  some  pause  in  the 
labor  is  occasionally  necessary.  —  Ita^a,  verb  denom.  from  -j:^. 
in  Piel  and  in  pause  (which  occasions  the  Tseri),  meaning  grow 
few,   become  few,  not    simply  are  few,   which   would    be   An'. 
Those  which  look  out,  etc.,  are  plainly  the  eyes.     The  eye-socket 
is  like  to  a  perforation  for  the  window  ;   the  eye-lashes  may  be 
compared  to  lattices  in  the  window,  which  in  oriental  windows 
are  employed  instead  of  glass.     Latticed  windoivs  would  be  an 
exact  literal  version.     But  nothing  would  be  gained  by  such  a 
translation.    It  would  rather  mislead  the  reader,  because  it  would 
seem  to  point  him  only  to  some  peculiar  kind  of  a  window,  when 
the  idea  is  in  fact  generic.     The  weakening  of  the   sight,  or 
darkening  of  the  eyes  in  old  age,  is  too  well  known  to  need  de- 
scription ;  see  in  Gen.  27  :  1  ;  1  Sam.  3:2;  1  K.  14  :  4.     Eyes 
and  teeth  are  both  fern,  in  Hebrew,  hence  the  fern,  participles 
agreeing  with  them. 

(4)  And  closed  are  the  doors  on  the  street,  while  the  noise  of  the  mill  is 
low,  for  it  rises  to  the  voice  of  a  sparrow,  and  all  the  daughters  of  song  are 
brought  low. 

Doors  of  thy  mouth,  or  lips,  are  expressions  in  Ps.  141  :  3  ; 
Mic.  5  :  7.      The  doors  of  his  face  is  employed  in  Job  41  :  14. 


324  LCCLESIASTES    XII.   4. 

There  can  be  no  doubt,  then,  that  the  lips  are  designated  by  the 
doors  on  the  street;  i.  e.,  like  the  outside  double  or  two-valved  door 
of  a  house,  the  way  of  entrance  into  it,  as  the  lips  are  the  en- 
trance to  the  mouth.  On  the  street  serves  merely  to  show  that 
the  entrance  or  outside  door  is  meant.  Are  shut  or  closed,  ex- 
presses the  position  of  the  lips  when  the  teeth  are  gone.  They 
are  shut  or  compressed  closely  together.  Noise  of  the  mill  is  low; 
but  what  is  the  mill?  Not  the  teeth,  for  they  are  called  grinders 
above.  There  seems  to  be  no  tolerable  explanation  of  this, 
excepting  that  it  is  intended  to  designate  the  mouth,  in  which 
the  grinders  are.  The  noise  is  that  made  by  the  voice,  as  Hitzig 
and  Heiligs.  interpret  it.  In  the  aged  this  is  weakened  and  low. 
This  too  is  a  trait  of  old  age  which  is  further  developed  in  the 
sequel.  To  interpret  the  clause  (which  some  do)  as  meaning 
the  noise  made  by  chewing,  is  said  to  be  incongruous.  But  may  it 
not  be  said  in  reply,  that  old  people  rarely  undertake  to  eat  hard 
substances,  and  the  chewing  of  soft  ones  will  make  only  a  low 
noise  ?  Shall  the  b'ip,  noise,  be  referred,  then,  to  the  chewing  of 
soft  food,  such  as  the  aged  must  take,  because  the  noise  in  ques- 
tion, in  such  a  case,  is  bad ,  quite  low  ?  or  must  it  refer  to  the 
voice  of  the  aged,  as  stated  above  ?  Neither  of  the  alternatives 
is  very  inviting.  However,  as  eating  seems  to  be  despatched  in 
the  third  verse,  there  is  some  incongruity  in  supposing  it  to  be 
again  introduced  here.  But  a  greater  difficulty  in  the  way  of 
this  is  that  the  noise  of  eating  cannot  well  be  a  subject  or  Nom. 
to  the  next  clause  ;  it  must  be  the  voice  of  the  mouth.  In  a  case 
so  doubtful  and  obscure,  this  would  seem  to  be  a  sufficient  reason 
for  giving  this  latter  exegesis  the  preference. 

J*or  it  rises  to  the  voice  of  the  sparroiv,  i.  e.,  attains  unto  the 
voice  of  a  sparrow  ;  comp.  Mp  in  Zeph.  3  :  8  ;  1  Sam.  22  :  13  ; 
Mic.  2  :  8,  for  a  like  sense.  Translated  thus,  the  last  two  clauses 
•rive  the  grounds  for  the  assertion  in  the  preceding  clause,  or  at 
any  rale  furnish  illustrations  of  it.  —  1,/or,  §  152,  B.  c.  The 
voice  of  a  sparrow  is  a  very  slender  one ;  and  a  voice  not  louder 


ECCLKSI  ASTES    XII.  5.  320 

than  this  may  well  be  called  low.  Some  interpret  this  as  mean- 
ing :  '  He  (the  old  man)  rises  up  from  his  couch  very  early,  as 
soon  as  the  voice  of  the  sparrow  is  heard.'  But  where  is  the 
proof  that  the  sparrow  is  an  early  matin-bird?  or  that  the  old 
man  would  be  apt  to  hear  his  tiny  voice  ?  If  it  were  the  crow- 
ing of  the  cock,  the  exegesis  would  seem  more  probable  than  it 
now  does.  And  last,  but  not  least,  where  is  the  proof  that  aged 
and  infirm  people  are  wont  to  be  early  risers  ?  Early  they  may 
wake,  but  they  are  not  wont  to  rise  as  soon  as  they  wake.  Then 
again,  D*p^  is  not  the  word  for  such  rising;  we  should  expect 

All  the  daughters  of  song,  is  a  locus  vexatus.  Still,  some  things 
are  plain.  Sons  of  men  are  men;  daughters  of  men  means  wo- 
men. Why  may  not  daughters  of  song  mean  songs  ?  Daughters 
of  Tyre  —  Babylon  —  Philistia,  etc.,  means  Tyrians,  Babyloni- 
ans, Philistines,  etc.  So  in  the  Talmud :  hip  r.S ,  simply  voice 
(probably  =  echo).  All  songs  or  singing,  in  old  age,  usually 
becomes  low-toned;  1fl1B"i ,  Niph.  Imperf.  from  Tin® ,  with  a  Dagh. 
in  the  form.  Literally,  are  depressed;  but  I  have  translated  by 
brought  low,  because  there  seems  to  be  a  kind  of  personification 
in  the  use  of  m'33,  which  is  best  carried  out  by  translating  brought 
low.  Sentiment :  '  All  song-singing  or  music  is  low-toned,  or 
with  a  depressed  voice.'  When  the  teeth  are  gone,  and  the  lips 
fall  in,  as  before  stated,  singing  must  necessarily  be  of  the  sort 
here  described.  If  the  two  last  clauses  are  not  properly  grounds 
or  reasons  for  the  preceding  one,  they  at  least  help  to  establish  it 
by  illustration. 

(5)  Moreover,  they  are  afraid  of  that  which  is  high,  and  terrors  are  in  the 
way,  and  the  almond  disgusts,  and  the  locust  is  hurdensome,  and  the  kapper 
has  no  force ;  for  man  is  going  to  his  everlasting  home,  and  the  mourners 
go  around  the  streets. 

Afraid  of  that  which  is  high,  because  mounting  a  height  makes 
the  aged  pant  for  breath.    The  action  of  the  lungs  is  constringed 

28 


326  ECCLESIASTES    XII.  5. 

s,  which  contracts  the  muscles  of  the  breast.  To  mount  a 
narrow  height,  e.  g.,  a  tower  or  precipice,  would  also  create  sen  a- 
tioDS  of  dizziness.  They  shun  both.  In  the  latter  case,  the 
terror  of  falling  lies  in  the  way,  and  constantly  besets  them. 
And  the  almond  disgusts,  not  the  almond-tree  blooms,  deriving 
■)*x^  from  ym42,  and  making  it  =  j*^,  and  so,  as  the  almond-tree 
blooms  in  the  winter,  this  class  of  critics  say  that  it  represents 
the  hoary  head  of  the  old  man.  But  then  the  almond-blossom 
is  not  white,  but  pink-colored,  or  of  carnation  hue.  Besides, 
"x:^  for  y£  has  no  parallel  in  Hebrew  orthography.  The  root, 
then,  must  be  "X3,  which  means  to  despise,  contemn,  treat  with 
disgust.  In  Hiph.,  then,  it  would  mean:  causes  disgust;  and 
there,  it  seems  to  me,  it  should  be  reckoned,  and.  pointed  yxt*  ; 
unless,  indeed,  with  Gesenius,  we  admit  a  Sijriasm  in  the  pres- 
ent pointing,  viz.,  "  YVtS^  more  Syrorum  for  "X^ ."  This,  how- 
ever, would  not  alter  the  meaning  of  the  word.  The  almond, 
once  a  favorite  fruit,  now  only  creates  disgust,  for  want  of  power 
to  masticate  it.  There  is  no  need  of  an  Ace.  case  after  the  ^  erb  ; 
for  to  cause  disgust,  is  in  itself  intransitive.  Still,  if  E-  guff, 
were  supplied,  then  we  should  translate  thus  :  makes  them  to 
loathe.  But  this  is  quite  superfluous.  Hitzig  proposes  to  read 
pfiO?,  and  translates  thus:  The  almond-tree  despises  [them].  Of 
course  he  takes  the  tree  as  a  mere  symbol  in  this  case  ;  like  as 
the  palm-tree  (in  Cant.  7  :  9)  is  the  symbol  of  the  bride,  on 
account  of  its  slender  tallness  and  its  sweet  fruit.  In  Canticles 
the  fruit  is  represented  as  accessible ;  but  here  the  fruit  of  the 
almond-tree  is  inaccessible  to  the  old  man,  who  cannot  ascend 
that  which  is  high.  This,  as  he  avers,  is  represented  in  a  kind 
of  poetic  manner,  viz.,  the  almond-free  looks  down  with  con- 
tempt on  tli"  old  man,  who  cannot  climb  it,  and  mocks  his  ef- 
forts to  obtain  its  treasures.  A  congruous  sense  this  may  well 
]><•  called,  when  we  compare  it  as  related  to  the  first  part  of  the 

—  afraid  "/'heights.  But  in  this  case  the  verb  becomes 
so  far  active   thai  it  seem.-  to  need  a  complement  or  object,  while 


ECCLESIASTES    X  1 1 .  5.  £27 

none  is  supplied.  On  this  account  I  must  incline  to  the  preced- 
ing view,  the  almond  occasions  disgust.  J  am  the  more  inclined 
to  this  on  account  of  the  next  following  clauses,  which  stand  con- 
nected with  the  failure  of  appetite,  so  that  both  are  congruous 
with  each  other. 

nsn  is  a  species  of  the  locust  tribe,  winged  and  edible  (see 
Lew  11  :  22)  ;  which  passage  allows  the  Hebrews  to  eat  four 
kinds  of  the  locust.  Some  species  of  them  are  generally  eaten 
in  the  East,  and  brought  into  the  markets  for  sale,  even  at  the 
present  time.  The  hard-shelled  ones  resemble  a  crab-fish  in 
point  of  taste.  Some  of  them  are  even  regarded  as  a  great  del- 
icacy. Hence  the  sentiment  in  the  text :  '  Even  the  most  deli- 
cate viands  —  among  which  is  the  eatable  locust  —  become  a 
burden  to  the  aged  man,  whose  appetite  fails.'  This  is  perfectly 
natural.  Delicate  and  rich  viands  disgust  an  enfeebled  stomach, 
which  cannot  digest  them.  The  most  simple  food  is  the  only 
food  that  can  be  safely  taken  in  these  circumstances.  Hence  the 
locust,  banp^  (Hiph.  of  bn&,  §  53,  2),  makes  itself  a  burden;  i.e., 
becomes  burdensome,  being  difficult  of  digestion  and  occasioning 
nausea  in  the  stomach.  Hitzig  gives  the  passage  quite  another 
turn,  referring  it,  by  virtue  of  a  resemblance  between  SJjn  and 
mis  (voluptuous  delight),  to  sexual  intercourse,  which  becomes 
forced  rather  than  voluntary.  But  this  seems  quite  unsatisfac- 
tory when  a  plainer  and  more  facile  meaning  presents  itself. 
Heiligs.  is  still  more  imaginary.  "As  the  locust,  when  its  wings 
are  grown,  attempts  to  fly,  but  does  this  at  first  with  great  effort, 
even  so  the  old  man,  about  to  '  shift  oiF  this  mortal  coil,'  labori- 
ously attempts  his  flight."  Altogether  invito,  Minerva.  The 
most  simple  meaning  is  nearly  always  the  preferable  one  ;  and 
here  it  is  altogether  the  most  congruous.  And  the  hopper  (in 
vulgar  usage  spelled  caper)  is  inert,  or  has  no  force;  so  Van  der 
Palm,  De  Wette,  Gesenius,  and  others.  Hitzig  supplies  an  im- 
plied r^--:  after  isn,  and  supposes  the  allusion  to  be  made  to  an 
implied  agreement  that  the  kapper  should  aid  the  ^r\z=zyj, 


328  ECCLESIASTES    XII.   5. 

amatory  pleasure,  which  agreement,  in  this  case,  is  frustrated  or 
annulled;  ingenious,  indeed,  but  too  forced  and  far-fetched.  The 
hopper  was  used  as  a  stimulant  for  all  the  natural  appetites,  in- 
asmuch as  it  gave  life  and  animation  to  the  system.  Specially 
was  it  regarded  as  a  venereal  stimulant.  In  this  last  sense  it 
may  be  taken  here.  Food  disrelishes,  even  the  delicate  viands 
are  a  burden.  With  the  appetite  for  this,  the  other  natural  ap- 
petites decline,  so  that  venery  becomes  rather  disgusting  than 
alluring  ;  at  any  rate,  in  extreme  old  age  it  becomes  mischievous 
in  most  cases.  The  meaning  of  rtitaKh  seems  to  be  well  settled 
(see  Buxt.  Lex.  Chald.,  and  Ges.  Thesaurus  s.  v.).  —  iStt  comes 
from  TnB,  and  is  3d  Praet.  Hiph.,  and  one  of  its  meanings  is, 
irritum  fecit.  It  would  seem  to  demand  an  Ace.  of  object  after 
it,  at  least  an  implied  one.  It  usually  connects  with  such  objects 
as  covenant,  law, promise,  vow,  etc.  Gesenius  (Lex.)  makes  it 
intransitive  in  our  text ;  and  so  it  may  be  (§  52),  for  Hiphil  is 
often  so.  But  if  we  insist  on  the  active  transitive  here,  then 
fi^a,  or  some  equivalent  word,  may  be  supplied,  the  verb  being 
taken  as  a  constructio pregnans,  §  138.  So:  the  kapper  breaheth 
promise.  It  was  expected,  from  its  qualities,  to  rouse  by  excite- 
ment, and  this  is  what  it  usually  does ;  but  now  it  frustrates 
wishes  or  expectations.  It  becomes  inert,  i.  e.,  produces  no  ef- 
fect. This,  indeed,  is  not  a  literal  translation,  but  it  is  in  effect, 
giving  the  sense  of  the  passage,  which,  like  those  that  precede  it, 
is  elliptical. 

The  failure  of  these  powers  and  appetites  is  indicative  of  what 
must  speedily  follow.  For  man  is  going  to  his  eternal  home,  T\?p  > 
abiturus,  about  to  depart.  Not  has  gone,  for  his  death  is  after- 
wards described  in  vs.  G,  7.  As  yet  it  is  a  future  occurrence. 
Eternal  home  occurs  nowhere  else  in  the  Scriptures,  but  the 
Targum  on  Is.  42  :  11  mentions  eternal  houses  or  homes,  i.  e., 
Bepulchres  ;  the  Book  of  Tobit  (•">  :  (»)  calls  the  grave  tottos  aiw- 
wos;  and  the  Egyptians  called  their  catacombs  di'Stpvs  oikous. 
Compare  the  sentiment   in  .'1:20,  21,  and  i)  :  3 — 6.     Such  a 


ECCLESIASTES    XII.  c.  329 

name  for  the  grave  dors  not  necessarily  imply  a  disbelief  of  a 
future  resurrection  (Dan.  12:2),  but  only  that  those  who  are 
laid  in  the  sepulchre  have  a  habitation  that  will  never  be  ex- 
changed, as  houses  among  the  living  are.  A  final  home  is  a 
familiar  expression  even  with  us.  AVe  cannot  defend  it  philo- 
sophically or  theologically,  but  it  is  still  in  popular  use.  Just 
thai  is  meant  here  by  the  Hebrew.  And  the  mourners  go  around 
the  streets,  Hitzig  refers  to  mourning  in  anticipation  of  evil ;  as, 
e.  g.,  2  Sam.  12  :  16  ;  Ps.  35  :  13  ;  Esth.  4:3;  Jer.  48  :  38. 
But  why  not  render  lSl  WSp1],  the  mourners  will  surround,  or  go 
around,  etc?  Then  the  one  occurrence  is  as  much  future  as  the 
other.  This  is  certainly  the  more  natural.  The  only  difficulty 
is,  that  i  conversive  before  a  verb  is  seldom  indeed  to  be  seen  in 
the  book  before  us.  The  marching  around  in  the  street  looks 
much  like  the  funeriil  procession,  accompanied  by  artificial  or 
hired  mourners,  as  is  usual  in  the  East.  In  all  the  cases  of  an- 
ticipated mourning  referred  to  above,  there  is  nothing  that  indi- 
cates any  yirocession.  On  this  ground  I  must  refer  !on&  to  the 
Pres.,  as  to  sense  (§  124,  3.  b.),  in  the  same  manner  as  if  a  Pres. 
verb  preceded  it.  The  dead  man  going  to  an  endless  home,  i.  e., 
the  grave,  is  accompanied  by  a  procession  winding  through  the 
streets.  For  such  processions  see  2  Sam.  3  :  31 ;  Jer.  9  :  16 — 20, 
where  is  a  full  account ;  also  2  Chron.  35  :  25  ;  Matt.  9  :  23  ; 
11  :  17  ;  Mark  5  :  38  ;  Luke  7  :  32.  The  same  custom  of 
hired  mourners  in  procession  is  kept  up  in  the  East  at  the 
present  time.     For  pWS,  see  Is.  15  :  3. 

(f>)  While  the  silver  cord  is  not  broken,  nor  the  cup  of  golden  [oil] 
crushed,  nor  the  pitcher  dushed  in  pieces  at  the  fountain,  nor  the  wheel 
crushed  at  the  cistern. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  verse  is  a  resumption  of  the  particles 
in  v.  2,  showing  that  the  same  subject  is  still  continued.  —  prn? 
has  a  substitute  proposed  in  the  Qeri  (pn;:),  probably  because 
the  meaning  of  the  first  verb   (to  remove  to  a  distance)  seems 

28* 


330  ECCLESIASTES    XII.   6. 

incongruous.  But  pry?  means  to  bind,  and  it  has  no  Niphal  un- 
less this  in  our  text  be  one.  There  is  no  evidence,  however, 
even  if  a  Niph.  form  be  admitted,  that  it  would  be  privative  in 
its  meaning,  viz.,  to  unbind,  to  sever  (the  sense  here  demanded), 
nor  can  this  be  deemed  probable  in  respect  to  a  Niph.  conjuga- 
tion. The  probability,  then,  is,  that  here  (as  in  the  case  of  ^na?, 
9:4),  the  n  is  transposed,  and  therefore  that  the  word  should  be 
written  p"W.  In  Arabic  p^n  means  laceravit,  an  appropriate 
meaning  as  applied  to  the  silver  cord  or  chain  in  the  present 
case,  and  so  appropriate  that  we  need  not  hesitate  to  adopt  it. 
Silver  cord  must  mean  the  silver  chain  by  which  the  lamp  is 
suspended.  —  "pn,  Imperf.  Kal.  of  ym4^  (see  §  66,  n.  9,  for  the 
1  instead  of  H),  and  is  intransitive  with  a  passive  meaning. 
rfba,  const.,  usually  translated  as  meaning  the  knob  or  bowl  of 
the  lamp  which  holds  the  oil.  But  nn-rfi  can  hardly  mean  gold 
here.  In  Zech.  4  :  12  it  means  oil,  and  tropically  so  in  Job 
37  :  22  ;  i.  e.,  something  of  golden  color.  Here,  if  silver  cord 
represents  the  thread  of  life,  then  the  bowl  would  seem  to  sym- 
bolize the  body,  and  the  oil  (a  liquid)  the  liquid  air  which  fills 
the  lungs.  But  to  make  the  life-principle  silver,  and  the  body 
gold,  would  seem  to  be  incongruous.  We  may  rather  acquiesce 
in  the  more  general  symbol,  viz.,  the  lamp  of  life  may  have  the 
cord  by  which  it  hangs  broken,  and  the  lamp  be  dashed  in  pieces, 
which  holds  the  oil  that  supplies  the  flame  of  life.  —  T3 ,  the 
pitcher  let  down  to  draw  up  the  water.  This  may  be  easily 
dashed  in  pieces  ("Ofc:n  =  our  English  word  shiver')  at  the  foun- 
tain or  source  of  the  water.  Wheel  crushed,  viz.,  the  wheel 
which  raises  the  water  by  the  winding  up  of  the  draw-rope  upon 
it.  When  such  things  befall  the  water-apparatus,  water  ceases 
to  be  had.  So,  to  compare  the  air  we  breathe  with  the  water 
which  we  drink,  when  the  apparatus  for  breathing  is  broken  and 
disabled,  ili<;  breath  of  course  must  cease.  Beyond  this  general 
comparison  we  cannot  well  go  ;  and  this  is  sufficient,  and  is  also 
striking. 


ECCLESIASTES    XII.  7.  331 

(7)   Then  shall  the  dust  return  to  the  earth  as  it  was,  and  the  spirit  to 

God  who  gave  it. 

That  man  is  made  of  dust  is  often  recognized  in  the  Old 
Test,  and  the  representation  takes  its  source  from  Gen.  3  :  19. 
See  Ps.  104  :  29  ;  Job  34  :  15.  As  it  was,  viz.,  before  it  was 
made  into  man.  On  the  subject  of  the  spirit  and  its  return  to 
God,  I  must  refer  the  reader  to  the  discussion  connected  with 
3  :  21.  What  God  gave  he  takes  back.  But  he  gave  the  body- 
as  well  as  the  spirit.  The  body,  however,  he  does  not  take  back 
to  himself;  nor  can  he  any  more  be  supposed  to  take  back  the 
mere  breath  of  life,  in  such  a  sense  as  that  it  returns  to  him.  If 
this  meaning  be  given  to  rWi,  we  must  acquiesce  in  the  more 
general  meaning  of  merely  giving  and  taking  away,  without 
attaching  to  this  any  idea  respecting  how  that  is  disposed  of 
which  is  taken  away  ;  which  can  hardly  be  reconciled  with  the 
idea  of  STOPI,  shall  return.  Is  there  any  emanation-philosophy  to 
be  discovered  here  ?  Does  the  spirit  (fisn)  emanate  from  God 
as  a  particle  (so  to  speak)  of  his  being;  and  when  man  dies, 
does  this  particle  become  absorbed  again  in  his  immensity  ?  for 
this  the  philosophy  in  question  teaches.  If  there  were  any  evi- 
dence at  all  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  of  the  emanation-philos- 
ophy, we  might  explain  the  passage  before  us  by  the  aid  of  it. 
But  the  whole  tenor  of  these  Scriptures  is  against  this  viewr. 
God  and  man  are  beings  widely  and  essentially  diverse  in  their 
nature.  The  Hebrews  brought  God  down,  in  his  great  con- 
descension, to  watch  over  and  to  aid  and  bless  man ;  but  they 
never  dreamed  of  elevating  man  into  the  place  of  God.  A  moral 
resemblance  man  might  have,  and  had,  to  his  Maker ;  but  his  on- 
tological  nature  admitted  of  no  comparison ;  for  how  can  created 
compare  with  uncreated,  finite  with  infinite?  To  see  his  face,  to 
awake  in  the  resurrection  and  put  on  his  likeness,  are  the  utmost 
to  which  the  thoughts  of  the  Hebrew  extended  or  aspired.  Then 
what  is  returning  to  God?  Returning  to  dust,  we  understand. 
The  body  becomes  united  to  it,  or  absorbed  in  it.     But  in  what 


032  ECCLESIASTES    XII  .   8. 

sense  docs  vital  breath  (frti)  return  to  God?  This  question  still 
remains,  after  all  that  has  been  said  about  nrn,  and  is  more  diffi- 
cult to  be  answered  than  Knobel  and  llitzig  seem  to  imagine. 
if  return  lias  the  like  meaning  in  both  clauses  (the  verb  in  both 
is  the  same  in  the  Hebrew),  then  must  the  emanation-doctrine  be 
recognized  here.  But  we  have  seen  that  there  is  no  ground  for 
supposing  this  to  have  been  held  by  the  Hebrews.  What  is  it, 
then,  we  ask  again  —  what  is  it  that  returns  ?  And  what  be- 
comes of  it  after  its  return  ?  In  case  nn  here  means  spirit,  in 
our  usual  English  sense  of  the  word,  then  we  have  a  tangible 
meaning.  The  soul  returns  to  the  peculiar  and  immediate  pres- 
ence of  God,  there  to  be  judged  (according  to  v.  14).  In  what 
other  way  can  we  make  out  a  consistent  Hebrew  sentiment  from 
this  passage  ?  That  God  gave  the  spirit  of  man,  is  a  sentiment 
often  repeated;  e.g.,  the  God  of  the  spirits  of  all  flesh;  the  Father 
if  oar  spirits,  etc. 

(8)   Vanity  of  vanities,  saith  the  preacher,  all  is  vanity 

Thus  end  the  discussions  of  the  book,  with  the  same  sentiment 
which  was  made  its  thesis  at  the  beginning.  The  writer  has 
gone  through  the  whole  round  of  human  employment  and  enjoy- 
ment, and  he  comes  out  at  last  fully  with  the  sentiment  which 
he  announced  at  the  beginning  as  the  thing  to  be  examined. 
Solid,  lasting,  and  unchanging  Jiajqnness  is  not  to  be  found  in 
any  worldly  occupation,  or  in  any  worldly  circumstances.  God 
has  impressed  this  truth  on  everything,  and  made  it  visible 
everywhere. 

But  the  other  side  of  the  picture,  which  presents  man's  future 
condition  and  destiny,  he  has  only  glanced  at.  It  was  not  his 
then  present  purpose  to  aim  at  developing  this.  We  feel  it  in- 
deed to  be  strange  thai  he  stops  where  he  doe-:.  We  should  not 
with  our  presenl  views.  But  before  we  condemn  him,  we 
should  at  least  become  well  acquainted  with  his  special  design 
and  purpo  es.     We  fhould  know  what  questions  of  the    time 


ECCLESIASTICS     XII.   8.  333 

were  pressing  upon  him  ;  what  Epicureanism  lie  was  called  to 
encounter  on  its  own  ground,  and  what  sensuality  needed  a  pow- 
erful cheek,  by  reasoning  within  its  own  circle.  The  book  is  an 
argumentum  ad  hominem,  a  refutation  from  the  worldling's  own 
stand-point.  The  writer  certainly  accomplishes  one  thing,  and 
he  does  this  effectually.  Christianity  would  lead  us  to  go  farther ; 
but  this,  when  Coheleth  wrote,  was  yet  to  "  bring  life  and  im- 
mortality to  light."  He  stops  where  Moses  stopped  in  the  Pen- 
tateuch ;  and  if  we  censure  him,  must  we  not  also  censure  Mo- 
ses ?  God  did  not  reveal  everything,  not  even  every  important 
-thing,  under  an  imperfect  and  preparatory  dispensation.  The 
world  has  had  its  childhood,  is  having  its  youth,  and  is  yet  to 
arrive  at  complete  manhood,  and  then,  perhaps,  have  its  old  age. 
Why  need  we  confound  all  these  stages  of  human  progress  with 
each  other ;  or  why  think  it  strange  that  the  author,  living  under 
the  first  stage,  has  not  written  and  spoken  as  if  he  lived  under 
the  second  or  third?  Caique  swam;  a  maxim  as  true  in  respect 
to  revelation,  as  it  is  in  regard  to  the  business  and  concerns  of 
life.  Many  a  striking  view  has  Coheleth  given  of  the  vanity  of 
mere  worldly  pursuits;  many  a  sound  precaution  has  he  uttered 
in  respect  to  incurring  dangers  and  temptations.  Above  all,  he 
has  throughout  maintained  and  inculcated  the  most  profound 
submission  as  to  the  mysterious  and  afflictive  dispensations  of  a 
holy  Providence.  With  him,  God  is  all  in  all ;  and  there  is  no 
way  of  obtaining  safety  or  comfort  left  for  man,  excepting  that 
of  absolute  and  unqualified  submission  to  God.  Whatever  he 
does  is  right ;  and  therefore  it  should  be  acquiesced  in  by  all  the 
creatures  of  his  power.  With  all  the  doubtings  and  struggles  of 
mind  which  he  develops,  it  is  quite  evident  that  at  the  bottom  of 
his  heart  lay  a  deep  substratum  of  pious,  submissive,  obedient, 
holy  feeling.  In  the  midst  even  of  a  paroxysm  of  despair,  when 
he  is  gazing  intently  on  some  gloomy  aspect  of  the  destiny  of 
man  until  life  becomes  a  burden,  he  never  utters  one  disrespect- 
ful or  murmuring  word  toward   God.     Indeed,  he  everywhere 


S34  ECCLESIASTES    XII.  8. 

appeals  to  Iris  rightful  sovereignty,  in  order  to  hush  every  ten- 
s' to  complaint.  So  firm,  so  solid  was  his  persuasion  that 
God  is  wise  and  good,  that  it  is  enough  in  his  view  to  hush  every 
complaint  and  silence  every  murmur  to  call  to  mind  that  this 
affliction  or  that  was  dispensed  by  his  hand.  What,  now,  shall 
Ave  say  to  all  this  ?  We  must  feel  ourselves  humbled  by  such  an 
exhibition.  We  often  murmur  or  are  discontented  when  we  are 
called  to  suffering  and  sorrow,  notwithstanding  all  the  light  and 
love  which  the  gospel  has  dhTused  around  us,  and  in  spite  of  all 
our  cheering  hopes  as  to  the  future.  What  then  should  we  have 
done,  if  placed  in  Coheleth's  condition  —  bowed  down,  and  in 
darkness,  and  merely  catching  some  glances  of  the  twilight  that 
was  beginning  to  gleam?  The  comparison  would  operate 
strongly  to  humiliate  us,  even  in  our  own  view.  If  those  men 
of  God  who  lived  many  centuries  before  the  gospel  was  re- 
vealed, could  think  and  act  as  they  did,  —  could  bow  before  God 
with  the  deepest  reverence  amid  the  deepest  gloom,  and  never 
utter  one  murmuring  word,  or  indulge  one  repining  thought, — 
could  believe  with  unshaken  faith  in  his  justice,  and  goodness, 
and  wisdom,  when  the  dealings  of  his  Providence  were  utterly 
inexplicable,  —  then  may  we  not  well  say:  Shame!  shame  on  us, 
for  all  our  doubts,  and  repining,  and  coldness,  and  wavering? 
If  they  could  feel  and  act  as  they  did  in  circumstances  such  as 
theirs  were,  they  might  indeed  have  had  far  less  knowledge  than 
we  have,  —  in  fact,  they  had  far  less,  —  but  must  they  not  have 
had  a  more  stable  and  ardent  piety,  and  a  more  firm  and  endur- 
faith  than  Ave  can  justly  attribute  to  ourselves?  '*  lie  that 
doeth  righteousness  is  righteous." 

We  do  in  ess  far  more  advantages  than  they  had  ;  but 

if  with  all  these  Ave  indulge  in  sin,  our  guilt  and  condemnation 

gravated.     Instead  of  indulging  in  self-gratulation 

when  we  look  at  them  in  their  struggles,  Ave  ought  to  be  pene- 

■  1  with  the  deepest  humility.     Little  to  a  good  purpose  has 

who.  like  Schleiermacher,  believes. that  it 


ECCLESIASTES    XII.  9. 

ig  very  little  in  advance  of  the  Greek  philosophy,  and  who 
it  aside  as  among  the  tilings  which  belonged  to  the  merest  child- 
hood of  mankind.  All  the  philosophy  of  Greece,  and  of  the 
whole  heathen  world,  never  made  one  such  man  as  Coheleth  ; 
nay  more,  it  never  inspired  any  individual  with  such  view-  of 
the  Godhead  as  he  exhibits.  Where  philosophy  doubts  and  de- 
spairs, and  has  recourse  to  inexorable  destiny,  and  to  fate  which 
is  superior  to  the  gods,  Coheleth  may  doubt  indeed  for  a  time, 
and  for  the  moment  even  despair ;  but  he  never  fails  to  find  a 
refuge  at  last  in  the  supremacy  and  wisdom  and  goodness  of 
God.  He  philosophizes  in  a  very  different  way  from  the  hea- 
then, and  comes  to  very  different  results. 

Many  other  interesting  topics  stand  connected  with  the  subject 
before  us ;  but  they  belong  more  properly  to  an  Introduction  to 
the  book,  and  will  be  found  there.  We  proceed  to  the  Epilogue 
or  Conclusion  of  the  book. 


§  1 G.    Conclusion  of  the  Booh.     Summary  of  Results. 

Chap.  XII.  9—14. 

[Since  Coheleth  -was  a  Hakam,  i.  e.,  a  man  devoted  to  study  and  writing, 
or  :i  crucpos,  he  occupied  himself  with  practical  views  of  human  life.  lie  lias 
come  to  many  results,  which  he  commits  to  writing  as  truths  to  he  depended 
on,  vs.  9,  10.  His  words  may  help  to  stimulate  others  to  do  their  duty,  for 
he  has  brought  together  what  may  he  regarded  as  firm  and  established,  v. 
1 1.  "What  he  has  written  is  sufficient  for  admonition;  to  make  many  books 
with  labor  and  weariness  would  he  to  little  purpose,  v.  12.  The  conclusion 
of  all  is,  that  we  should  fair  Cod,  and  obey  him  ;  and  this  admonition  extends 
to  all  men,  v.  13.  Men  should  do  thus,  because  all  that  they  do,  and  say, 
and  think,  and  feel,  will  at  some  future  period  he  brought  into  judgment, 
v.  14. 

Doderlcin.  Bcrtholdt,  Knohel,  and  others,  have  assailed  the  genui 
of  this  epilogue;  hut,  as  Ewald  and  Hitzig  well  declare,  without  any  good 
reason.     The  language  and  style  is  the  same  as  elsewhere  in  the  hook  ;  the 
conclusion  is  natural,  and  is  naturally  looked  for  by  the  reader.    Their  main 


336  ECCLESIASTES  .  XII.   9. 

reasons  arc  altogether  on  a  priori  ground.  "The  epilogue  is  not  genuine." 
they  say,  "because  the  author  did  not  know  or  believe  what  it  contains." 
But  what  is  the  evidence  of  this  ?  Has  he  not  repeatedly  urged  elsewhere 
to  the  fear  of  God,  and  to  obedience  ?  This  cannot  be  denied.  Has  he  not 
repeatedly  brought  to  view  the  truth  that  there  is  a  time  appointed  for  the 
judgment  of  what  men  do?  He  who  examines  3:17;  8:11,  12;  11:9, 
with  care,  and  then  compares  with  these  passages  the  many  which  speak  in 
concurrence  with  them,  will  be  slow  to  say  that  there  is  anything  specially 
new  in  v.  14  here.  "But  the  particularity  of  the  assertion,  viz.,  that  every 
work  and  every  secret  thing  shall  be  brought  into  judgment,  makes  it  certain," 
says  Knobel,  "  that  a  future  judgment  is  meant,  and  of  this  Coheleth  knew 
nothing,  and  therefore  could  not  have  written  the  passage."  But  the  assump- 
tion that  he  knew  nothing  of  all  this  is  without  proof,  and,  as  we  have  seen, 
without  any  good  foundation.  If  we  concede  all  that  Knobel  asserts  in  his 
premises,  we  might  follow  him  in  his  conclusion.  I  say  might  follow,  not 
must;  for  even  if  the  other  parts  of  the  book  develop  nothing  of  such  a 
knowledge,  this  would  not  decide  that  there  can  be  no  new  truth  in  the  epi- 
logue. At  all  events,  the  objections  to  the  genuineness  rest  on  grounds 
which  are  too  slender  to  support  them ;  and  the  great  body  of  critics  have 
failed  to  concede  that  they  have  any  force.  This  question  may  be  regarded, 
on  the  whole,  as  a  settled  one,  and  one  that  will  soon  cease  to  be  seriously 
debated  any  more.] 

(9)  And  further,  [I  say]  that  Coheleth  was  a  wise  man ;  moreover,  he 
taught  the  people  knowledge,  and  he  wreighed  and  searched  out  —  he  set  in 
order  many  parables. 

iryH'i ,  and  further,  with  an  implication  of  ^k ,  I  say.  This  is 
indicated  by  the  123  =  "TC3R,  that,  which  follows.  So  :  And  further 
[I  say],  that,  etc.  So  Ewald,  Hitzig,  and  others;  and  rightly. 
Coheleth  was  a  wise  man,  Dan,  not  the  wise  man,  but  one  belong- 
ing to  that  class,  a  Hakim,  as  such  a  one  is  still  called  in  Arabia. 
It  was  the  business  of  such  to  make  investigations.  He  speaks 
of  himself  in  the  third  person  here,  as  often  elsewhere.  —  Tis, 
further,  introducing  a  clause  which  stands  as  coordinate  with 
was  a  vise  man,  giving  an  account  of  what  such  a  man's  em- 
ploymenl  was.  He  f<iu</h/  the  people  knowledge,  two  Accusatives 
after  a  verb  of  teaching,  viz.,  the  one  describes  those  who  were 


ECCLESIASTES    XII.    10.  337 

taught,  the  other  the  thing  that  was  taught.  Weighed  and  sought 
out,  he  weighed  B^lCO  already  known,  and  sought  out  new  ones. 
The  Ace.  is  not  supplied  here,  viz.,  that  which  he  weighed  and 
sought  out;  but  the  next  clause  supplies  it,  which  is  subordi- 
nate to  the  present  one.  It  is  of  course  firtlBa.  The  verb  )^e\ 
means  to  arrange,  to  set  right  or  in  order.  It  has  no  "j  before 
it,  which  shows  that  it  is  subordinate  and  epexegetical ;  see 
the  like  in  1  K.  13  :  18  ;  Gen.  48  :  14 ;  Jer.  7  :  2G,  al.  The 
seeling  out  and  weighing  are  first  in  time  ;  then  putting  the  result 
in  order  is  the  next  subsequent  process.  For  this  sense  of  Igfl, 
see  also  1  :  15  ;  7:13.  —  b^Vje,  similitudes,  resemblances,  a  kind 
of  composition  in  which  comparison,  by  reason  of  resemblances 
or  of  contrast,  frequently  takes  place.  Hence  parables  in  the 
sense  of  the  Greek  irapafioXai,  which  denotes  that  things  are 
brought  together  and  compared.  Whether  similitude  or  contrast 
be  the  result,  both  are  called  parables.  So  the  Book  of  Prov- 
erbs, t3nV9?  j  where  this  species  of  composition  so  much  abounds. 
But  our  word  proverb  is  not  coextensive  with  the  meaning  of 
aibsta,  which  the  Hebrews  applied  to  any  species  of  composition 
where  comparisons  or  similitudes  abound.  So  the  book  before 
us  is  filled  with  cases  of  contrast  and  of  resemblance.  That 
Coheleth  set  these  in  order  was  a  subordinate  work ;  and  so  our 
text  makes  it,  when  the  grammatical  construction  is  well  under- 
stood. It  is  worthy  of  note  that  all  the  three  verbs  are  here  in 
Piel,  in  order  to  denote  continued  and  repeated  effort. 

(10)  Coheleth  sought  to  find  agreeable  words,  and  correctly  to  write  down 
words  of  truth. 

ysn ,  of  agreeableness,  of  pleasantness.  Altogether  appropri- 
ate ;  for  a  book  like  Coheleth's  needs  pains-taking  with  the  dic- 
tion, in  order  to  render  it  spirited  and  attractive.  —  3*P$,  pointed 
as  a  Part.  pass,  here,  but  erroneously.  It  should  plainly  be  3"in3, 
Inf.  abs.,  for  it  is,  as  it  were,  in  apposition  with  the  preceding 
fchra^,In£  const.    This  is  nothing  strange.    See  in  1  Sam.  22  :  13; 

29 


338  ECCLESIASTES    XII.   11. 

25  :  26,  33,  comp.  31  ;  Ex.  32  :  6,  al.,  examples  of  the  same  na- 
ture, where  the  Inf.  abs.  continues  the  discourse  after  the  Inf. 
const.  —  *yfft ,  lit.  correctness,  but  it  is  adverbial  Ace.  of  manner 
z=z  correctly.  The  second  clause  is  rather  coordinate  with  the 
firet  than  subordinate.  The  writer  does  not  mean  merely  that 
he  first  sought  for  proper  words,  and  then  proceeded  to  write  the 
same  down,  but  he  means  to  convey  the  additional  idea  that  he 
wrote  words  of  truth  as  well  as  acceptable  words. 

(11)  The  words  of  the  wise  are  as  goads,  and  as  nails  driven  in  are  those 
who  make  collections,  which  are  communicated  by  one  shepherd. 

"pa-H  (read  dor-bon,  although  Dagh.  lene  is  not  inserted  in  the 
n,  as  we  might  expect)  is  the  ground-form  of  FnahT*.  But  we 
have  other  examples  of  the  like  kind ;  e.  g.,  )^%  in  Ezek.  40  : 
43,  and  -,nnx  in  Esth.  8  :  6.  The  Methegh  after  (t)  in  two  of 
these  three  cases,  would  seem  to  indicate  a  long  a  sound  for 
Qamets ;  but  etymology  is  against  it  in  these  forms  (they  being 
Puo.l  derivates,  and  so  with  the  first  vowel  short),  and  Methegh 
is  not  put  here  for  the  sake  of  the  (t),  but  in  accordance  with  a 
principle  which  frequently  admits  it  on  a  penult  syllable  when  it 
is  short  and  closed,  §16,  2,  n.  c.  In  the  plural  form  in  our  text, 
the  (j)  supplies  the  place  of  the  Methegh  in  the  ground-form. 
The  meaning  of  the  word  is  goad,  but  not  exclusively  ox-goad, 
as  Ges.  (Lex.)  seems  to  imply.  The  goad  may,  indeed,  be  used 
for  oxen,  but  so  it  may  also  for  any  other  beast  that  needs  to  be 
urged  on.  Of  course  the  sense  is  figurative  here.  Stimulant  is 
the  meaning,  or  that  which  excites,  or  which  pricks  so  as  to  make 
a  vivid  impression.  The  reference  here  is  not  to  all  the  words 
which  the  wise  may  utter,  but  to  those  which  have  a  sententious 
form,  to  the  cHwOT  of  v.  9,  adapted  to  seize  the  attention  and 
impress  the  memory;  in  a  word,  the  reference  is  to  such  sayings 
and  precepts  as  this  book  contains.  —  DYTDtott  is  formed  from  TCD, 
to  bristle,  but  it  is  here  written  with  Sin  (to  =  &),  nails  or  spikes. 
The  image  is  essentially  of  the  like  nature  with  that  of  goads; 


ECCLESIASTES    XII.  11.  339 

I.  e.,  both  are  sharp-pointed  instruments,  and  therefore  make  a 
lively  impression.  But  in  this  second  case  there  is  another  cir- 
cumstance added,  viz.,  the  nails  are  driven  in,  as  it  were  fast 
planted,  they  are  D*WW,  i.  e.,  made  fast  and  sure.  This  either 
marks  the  impression  as  both  deep  and  abiding,  or  (so  Ilitzi^;) 
designates  the  stable  and  permanent  nature  of  the  writings 
(v..  10)  in  question.  But  what  is  it  which  is  like  to  the  nails 
thus  driven  in  ?  The  answer  is,  rriB&a  ^53  ;  %.  e.,  the  collections 
of  the  trrsrn.  For  ^»a  see  first  the  use  of  fcsa  in  Lex.,  and 
compare  Ecc.  10  :  11,  20  (comp.  7  :  12;  8  :  8).  It  is  mani- 
fest, from  a  comparison  of  all  the  peculiar  uses  of  b'J2 ,  that  the 
idea  of  possessor  (which  of  course  follows  in  the  train  of  lord, 
master,  etc. )  enters  into  all  the  cases  where  it  occurs  in  the  const, 
state.  Thus  "PSF  ibao ,  lit.  possessors  of  the  city,  means  its  in- 
habitants, Judg.  9:51;  ts^srs  ^>2?a,  possessors  of  wings,  i.  e., 
winged,  Ecc.  10  :  20 ;  Abraham  and  his  neighbors  were  "brs 
rvna,  possessors  of  a  covenant;  i.  e.,  leagued  together,  Gen. 
14  :  13  ;  TTS5  bra ,  possessors  of desire  ;  i.  e.,  greedy,  Pro  v.  23  :  2  ; 
even  in  b^e  ^?a,  the  name  of  a  town  (2  Sam.  5  :  20),  the 
meaning  of  bsa  is  still  retained,  viz.,  possessor  of  breaches,  i.  e., 
a  town  on  which  breaches  have  been  made.  In  this  last  case  we 
see  it  applied  to  things  as  well  as  to  persons  ;  the  latter,  however, 
is  the  most  common  usage.  So  in  Is.  41  :  15,  m'^Q  b?a,  pos- 
sessor of  edges,  i.  e.,  sharp,  is  applied  to  a  new  threshing-drag. 
Any  person  or  thing,  having  any  quality,  or  marked  by  any  at- 
tribute or  peculiarity,  is  (or  may  be)  named  bra  in  respect  to 
that  quality,  etc.  This  seems  to  render  plain  the  meaning  of 
rvisox  ^sa.  The  word  rVi&bx  (plur.  of  fiBO:*)  is  a  Pilel  forma- 
tion from  t)BX,  and  means  simply  collections,  collectanea.  Hitzig 
has  rendered  the  two  connected  words  merely  by  Gesammelten, 
i.  e.,  collectanea.  But  then  what  becomes  of  the  modification 
made  by  *>bs;a  ?  Clearly  persons  are  here  concerned  ;  for  what 
says  the  previous  parallel  clause  ?  It  says  that  the  words  of  the 
wise  (D^oan)  are  like  goads.     A  class  of  persons,  who  utter  the 


CIO  ECCLESIASTES    XII.    11. 

words  in  question,  are  hereby  designated.  So  in  the  next  clause 
(now  before  us),  the  PHB&X  ^3>a  designates  such  of  the  wise 
men  as  made  collectanea  of  wise  and  prudential  sayings.  The 
first  class  utter  these ;  the  second  collect  writings  (a*lM3  in  v.  10) 
which  contain  them.  Both  are  goads  and  nails  to  the  careless 
and  indifferent.  The  first  quicken  and  stimulate  by  their  ad- 
dresses; the  second  do  the  same  thing,  but  ak&o  fasten  the  im- 
pressions made  more  lastingly,  because  they  are  not  only  nails, 
but  nails  driven  in,  firmly  planted  or  fixed,  since,  in  consequence 
of  the  maxims  being  reduced  to  writing,  they  take  an  enduring 
or  permanent  form.  It  seems  plain,  then,  that  the  nature  of  the 
parallelism  here  demands  persons  as  agents  in  both  its  parts- 
The  explanation  now  given  meets  that  demand.  If,  with  some 
critics  of  note,  we  translate  here :  masters  of  assemblies,  i.  e.,  of 
literary  consessus,  then  we  must  incur  the  difficulty,  not  to  say 
absurdity,  of  these  masters  being  given  by  one  shepherd.  It  u 
things  which  this  rts'l ,  shepherd,  i.  e.,  teacher,  gives,  and  not  per- 
sons. 

They  are  given  by  one  shepherd.  What  are  given?  Clearly 
the  things  just  mentioned.  So  plainly  is  this  the  case,  that  even 
IttJSfj  before  Hiti  is  dispensed  with  as  unnecessary.  Nor  is  there 
any  serious  difficulty  here.  The  words  of  the  wise  are  given, 
and  the  collectanea  of  one  class  of  them,  i.  e.,  maxims  and  mo- 
nitions already  reduced  to  writing  and  collected  by  them,  are 
both  given  by  Coheleth.  For  what  says  he  in  the  context  ?  He 
says  that  'he  sought  out,  and  weighed,  and  arranged  ti$r&af  and 
that  he  reduced  to  writing  what  he  found  to  be  true.'  He  is  the 
man,  then,  the  H"'"i ,  whose  object  it  is  to  feed  others  with  knowl- 
edge. As  to  the  first  two  clauses  of  v.  11,  where  the  plural 
number  is  used,  a  mere  general  fact  or  truth  is  here  stated.  The 
writer  says  that  the  wise  (the  Hahams)  speak  words  that  are  as 
goads,  and  that  their  associates,  who  collect  writings  of  this  sort, 
are  as  nails.  He  takes  it  for  granted  that  this  will  be  conceded 
in  the  general  form  in  which  he  states  it.     If  so,  then  he,  who 


ECCLESIASTES    XII.   11.  341 

has  sought  out,  and  weighed,  and  duly  arranged  all  of  these 
matters,  and  now  brings  them  forward,  is  entitled  to  a  hearing. 
Nay,  he  boldly  intimates  in  the  next  verse  that  his  book  contains 
the  essence  of  all,  and  moreover  that  it  comprises  all  which  is 
needed.  The  whole  of  vs.  0 — 12,  is  one  consistent  and  connected 
view  of  what  he  had  done,  and  of  the  credit  which  he  thinks  is 
due  to  it. 

We  can  now  easily  dispose  of  the  last  clause.  —  *0M  is  plural 
Perf.  of  Niph ;  its  Nom.  is  "iu:x  implied ;  and  *nz3«  refers  of 
course  to  the  words  and  writings  just  mentioned.  Coheleth  has 
searched  thoroughly,  and  written  down  whatever  he  judged  to  be 
true  and  important  to  his  purpose.  And  now  in  his  book  are 
given  to  the  world  the  results  of  his  labors.  —  inx  "T?^  >  by  one 
shepherd.  This  word  Hitzig  points  ftTyq ,  and  renders  it  pasture  ; 
that  is,  as  he  avers,  the  writer  has  collected  all  the  scattered  par- 
ticulars, and  thrown  them  into  one  pasture,  where  his  readers 
may  feed.  But  MFia  (as  plur.  Niph.)  said  of  the  writer  would  be 
abnormal ;  for  the  sing,  active  Kal,  "jw ,  would  in  such  a  case  be 
required.  In  the  passive,  then,  the  verb  must  be  made.  He 
renders  thus:  which  are  presented  as  a  united  pasture;  which 
at  least  wears  the  air  of  something  far-fetched  and  outre.  It  has 
no  like  in  all  the  Scriptures.  His  objection  to  rendering  taHn 
"nnx,  by  one  shepherd,  is  that  )"Q  does  nowhere  else  stand  before 
the  efficient  cause,  when  connected  with  the  passive.  But  in 
this  he  is  mistaken;  see  Gen.  9  :  11 ;  Ps.  76  :  7  ;  and  instru- 
mentalities are  not  unfrequently  preceded  by  "}«  ("q),  as  in  Is. 
28  :  7  ;•  Ps.  28  :  7 ;  Ezek.  28  :  18,  al.  There  is  no  difference 
between  these  two  classes  of  cases,  in  regard  to  the  principle 
concerned  in  the  grammatical  construction.  Then,  again,  he  sug- 
gests that  "  the  one  (ihn)  makes  an  insuperable  difficulty  here. 
Why  one  shepherd  ?  And  what  difference  is  there,  whether  the 
gift  is  from  one,  or  from  many?  "  Yet  to  my  mind  this  difficulty 
does  not  seem  weighty.  Of  whom  had  the  writer  just  been 
speaking  ?     Of  wise  men,  and  of  the  possessors  of  collectanea. 

29* 


312  ECCLESIASTES    XII.   12. 

These  are  many,  and  what  they  have  given  lies  in  many  scat- 
tered portions.  Coheleth  has  made  a  selection  and  a  summary 
from  them,  and  instead  of  being  obliged  to  consult  the  many 
tFtiln  and  niBOX  ^§3,  learners  find  in  one  teacher  all  that  they 
need.  The  one  ttsh  is  plainly  in  contrast  with  the  many  iwi . 
The  next  verse  fully  confirms  this  view  of  the  subject.  But 
why  does  the  writer  call  himself  FisH?  This  word  literally 
means  feeder,  e.  g.,  of  cattle,  sheep,  etc.  Tropically  it  is  very 
significant,  and  designates  rector,  curator,  governor,  king,  prince 
(like  Homer's  7rotya^v  Acuov)  ;  and  in  Prov.  10  :  21  the  verb  MS^ 
means  feeding  with  knowledge.  Of  course  rash  (the  Part.)  trop- 
ically designates  a  teacher,  an  instructor.  He  tells  us  expressly 
(v.  9)  that  he  taught  the  people  knowledge;  and  also  that  he 
searched  out  and  arranged  and  wrote  down  words  of  truth,  such 
as  the  wise  utter,  vs.  9, 10.  He,  then,  is  the  iisp.  He  feeds  the 
flock  with  knowledge.  In  thi3  view  of  the  subject  all  the  diffi- 
culties seem  to  vanish. 

I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  or  expedient  to  recount  and  refute 
the  almost  endless  varieties  of  opinion  that  have  been  given  con- 
cerning this  unique  and  hitherto  difficult  verse.  It  would  be 
time  spent  to  little  purpose.  Where  conjecture  takes  the  place 
of  grammatical  investigation,  and  random  guessing  of  sober  ex- 
egetical  examination,  opinions  may  be  endless  and  discrepant ; 
but  the  history  of  them  is  not  always  worth  preserving.  But  I 
am  not  disposed  to  be  over-confident,  in  such  a  case,  in  my  own 
opinion.  I  have  aimed  to  get  out  the  meaning  by  a  simple 
grammatical  and  philological  process.  If  I  have  not  succeeded, 
I  hope  that  others  will  be  more  fortunate. 

(12)  And  further  :  by  these,  my  son,  be  thou  admonished ;  to  make  books 
abundant  —  without  end,  and  much  eagerness  of  study,  are  a  weariness  of 
the  flesh. 

To  translate,  with  Herzfeld,  To  make  many  books  would  admit 
no  end;  or  with  Knobel  and  Ewald,  Admits  no  end — has  no  endf 


ECCLESIASTES    X  1 1 .   12.  343 

gives  an  irrelative  and  incongruous  sense ;  or  at  least  one  that 
cannot  be  true  without  much  allowance  for  hyperbole.  — Vg  '"X 
seems  to  be  added  merely  for  the  sake  of  intensity  to  ftSHtt. 
Hitzig,  to  make  endlessly  many  books ;  and  this,  no  doubt,  gives 
substantially  the  true  idea.  —  y£  "px  here  =  ^xp ,  which  last,  by 
the  way,  is  never  employed  in  this  book.  Doubtless  there  is 
hyperbole  in  the  expression,  even  thus  considered;  but  still, 
only  such  as  is  very  common  in  animated  discourse.  To  make 
very  many  books  gives  the  real  meaning ;  while  the  form  of  ex- 
pression in  Hebrew  is  thus :  To  make  books,  many,  without  end. 
The  last  two  words  are  merely  a  circumstantial  addition,  qualify- 
ing what  was  before  said.  Thus  far  we  have  only  one  subject 
or  Nom.  of  the  sentence.  But  a  second  subject  follows  :  and  much 
eagerness  of  study.  For  5rtb ,  found  in  Hebrew  only  here,  see 
Lex.  But  the  word  is  found  in  Arabic,  and  corresponds  there 
with  the  meaning  given  in  the  version.  Both  of  these  subjects 
are  now  followed  by  the  predicate ;  viz.,  is  a  weariness  of  the 
flesh  or  body.  Much  study  would  be  requisite  to  make  very 
many  books,  at  least  if  they  were  worth  reading.  And  such 
books  as  are  worth  it,  Coheleth  has  in  view,  for  they  are  such  as 
are  goads  and  nails,  not  trecentos  versus  in  hora,  starts  pede  in 
uno.  Verse  9  shows  that  he  had  made  strenuous  exertion  to 
write  one  book.  The  character  of  this,  as  it  stood  in  his  view, 
we  have  yet  to  consider. 

For  the  rest,  my  son,  be  thou  admonished,  or  get  for  thyself  ad- 
monition from  them,  or  by  them,  viz.,  from  the  things  that  are  com- 
municated by  the  one  shepherd.  —  ftsfTO  refers  to  those  things, 
and  we  may  render  »  either  from  or  by,  as  the  particle  is  capa- 
ble of  either  sense,  and  either  will  fit  the  passage.  —  ^33 ,  my  son, 
is  the  familiar  address  of  a  teacher  to  his  pupil ;  Prov.  1  :  8, 10, 
15  ;  2  :  1 ;  3  :  1,  11,  21 ;  4  :  1,  10,  20 ;  5  :  1,  20,  etc.  —  iron  may 
be  interpreted  either  by  the  simple  passive,  or  the  reflexive,  as 
Niph.  is  often  employed  in  the  latter  sense,  and  in  accordance 
with  this  I  have  translated  above. 


3-14  ECCLESIASTES    XII.   13. 

Sentiment :  '  Reader,  be  diligent  to  learn,  from  the  things  that 
I  have  communicated,  all  needful  admonition.  Many  books  are 
unnecessary  for  such  a  purpose,  and  the  labor  which  they  would 
cost  is  severe,  and  would  now  be  little  more  than  useless.' 

(13)  The  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter  let  us  hear:  Fear  God  and  keep 
his  commandments;  yea,  this  every  man  [should  do]. 

tjl'O  is  not  summary,  sum,  nor  even  final  result  here.  It  means 
the  concluding  part  of  the  whole  discussion,  and  so  that  which 
the  writer  has  most  of  all  at  heart.  "  Finis  coronat  opus."  The 
whole  matter,  where  Vsn  has  the  article,  but  *tt ,  in  apposition, 
is  without  it.  —  Vs  is  not  an  adjective,  but  a  noun,  denoting  the 
whole,  the  totality.  Literally,  a  conclusion  of  the  matter,  of  the 
whole  [of  the  matter].  The  article  in  this  case,  where  there  is 
a  speciality  of  emphasis  on  the  second  word,  is  designedly  added ; 
see  §  109,  2,  a.  The  accents  give  the  following  sense:  Conclu- 
sion of  the  whole ;  all  is  heard;  Fear  God,  etc.  The  punctators 
were  misled  by  not  comprehending  the  true  design  of  the  article 
in  Vsrt .  —  Yea,  this  should  every  man  \do~\.  With  Hitzig,  I  have 
rendered  T3  as  an  intensive  here,  as  it  often  is  in  this  book,  and 
in  the  contemporary  (?)  Book  of  Job ;  e.  g.,  11 :  6 ;  30  :  11 ;  31 :  18, 
23;  39  :  19.  But  it  may  be  causal,  for,  i.  e.,fear  —  keep,  etc., 
because  it  is  every  man's  duty  to  do  so.  Our  translation  runs 
thus :  The  whole  of  man,  and  is  against  the  Hebrew  idiom,  and 
without  any  tangible  sense,  for  D'lX'bs  cannot  mean  the  whole  of 
man,  but  every  man.  All  that  is  lacking  here  is  the  verb,  which, 
however,  the  context  supplies,  viz.,  1fe«5?  ;  and  then  the  clauses 
run  thus :  Keep  his  commandments ;  yea,  for  this  every  man 
[should  keep].  If  filled  out  entirely  it  would  run  thus :  For 
this  [last  commandment]  every  man  [should  keep].  This  (ht) 
refers  to  the  commandment,  or  to  each  commandment  just  given. 
In  other  words  :  '  "When  I  command  you  to  keep  the  command- 
ments of  God,  obey  this  my  command/  As  to  supplying  a 
verb  in  such  obvious  cases,  there  are  examples  enough;  see  in 


ECCLESIASTES    XII.    14.  345 

2  :  12,  comp.  Deut.  20  :  19.     Such  ellipses  are  nothing  strange, 
where  the  verb  is  so  easily  supplied. 

(14)  For  every  work  will  God  bring  into  the  judgment  concerning  every 
secret  thing,  whether  it  be  good  or  whether  it  be  evil. 

With  every  secret  tiling  (so  our  version),  the  Hebrew  does  not 
say.  The  word  by  does  not  mean  with.  The  simple  fact  is  that 
■Si  by  defines  and  qualifies  the  word  judgment,  without  making 
(as  our  version  does)  every  work  one  thing,  and  every  secret  tiling 
another.  —  2Q 'jfo  should  plainly  be  written  with  the  article,  B3£ft33 , 
as  it  is  in  11  :  9.  I  have  followed  the  accents,  in  my  pointing 
of  the  first  clause.  So  we  have,  by  this  well-authorized  change 
of  the  vowels,  the  judgment,  viz.,  the  one  which  God  has  ap- 
pointed, 11  :  9;  3  :  17.  But  what  kind  of  judgment  will  that 
be,  or  to  what  extent  will  it  go  ?  It  will  extend  over  (V?)  or 
unto  even  every  concealed  thing,  i.  e.,  concealed  from  men ;  it 
will  take  cognizance  of  all  actions  whether  good  or  evil.  The 
word  OQ*J73  is  mentally  repeated  or  implied,  before  by  —  [the 
judgment]  concerning,  or  having  respect  to,  every  concealed 
thing,  etc. 

No  wonder  that  Knobel  here  finds  a  future  judgment.  "If," 
says  he,  "  one  considers  this  passage  without  prejudice,  he  must 
acknowledge  the  idea  of  a  formal  judgment,  occurring,  as  men 
suppose,  after  death."  He  then  states  two  reasons  for  this  con- 
clusion :  (1)  "  Every  work  is  brought  into  judgment;  (2)  The 
expression  every  secret  thing  is  always  employed  with  reference 
to  a  judgment  after  death ;"  for  which  he  refers  to  Rom.  2:16; 
1  Cor.  4:5;  1  Tim.  5  :  24,  25.  Other  passages  might  be  added. 
He  considers  this  so  plain  and  certain  as  a  result  of  the  language, 
that  he  denies  the  genuineness  of  the  verse,  because,  as  he  says, 
Coheleth  had  no  knowledge  of  such  a  judgment,  or  belief  in  it. 
How  much  there  is  of  sound  argument  in  this  last  conclusion, 
has  already  been  examined,  in  the  remarks  above  made  on  the 
closing  part  of  the  book.     That  his  philological  conclusions  are 


316  ECCLESIASTES    XII.   14. 

sound,  it  would  not  be  difficult  to  prove.  The  writer  plainly 
believes  in  a  future  judgment.  Hitzig  (on  11  :  9)  endeavors  to 
show  that  all  the  judgment  which  is  spoken  of  there  is  the  evils 
which  attend  old  age,  or  which  come  upon  it.  He  tacitly  ex- 
tends this  same  view  to  the  verse  now  before  us ;  but  he  is  silent 
in  regard  to  the  matter  in  his  commentary  upon  it.  I  have  (in 
remarks  on  11:9)  already  examined  his  views,  and  found  good 
reason,  as  it  seems  to  me,  to  differ  from  them. 


WARREN  F.   DRAPER, 

PUBLISHER  AND  BOOKSELLER, 

AN  DOVER,  MASS., 

PUBLISHES  AND    OFFERS    FOB    SALE    TI1E    FOLLOWING,   WniCIT   WILL   BE    SENT 
POST    PAID    ON    RECEIPT    OF    THE    SUM    NAMED. 


GUERICKE'S  CHURCH  HISTORY  (Ancient  Church;  including  the 
First  Six  Centuries).  Translated  by  William  G  T.  Shedd,  Brown  1'rofessor 
in  Andover  Theological  Seminary.    442  pp.  8vo.    $2.25. 

The  established  credit  of  Guerickc's  labors  in  the  department  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  and  the 
use  made  of  his  works  by  many  English  writers  will  make  this  volume  acceptable  to  a  very  large 
class  of  students  and  readers.  —  London  Journal  of  Sacred  Literature. 

Guericke's  History  is  characterized  by  research,  devotitness,  firm  grasp  of  evangelical  truth, 
and  careful  exhibition  of  the  practical  as  well  as  the  intellectual  aspects  of  Christianity.  —  North 
British  Review. 

Wc  regard  Professor  Shedd's  version  as  a  happy  specimen  of  the  transfusion,  rather  than  a 

translation,  which  many  of  the  German  treatises  should  receive.     The  style  of  his  version  is  far 
superior  to  that  of  the  original.  —  Bibliotlicca  Sacra. 

Among  the  most  faithful,  and  yet  the  most  independent,  of  the  followers  of  Neander,  may  be 
mentioned  Guericke,  who  carries  out  Neander's  plan  in  a  more  compendious  form,  but  with  an 
almost  bigoted  attachment  to  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  Luther,  in  a  style  so  crabbed  and  involved, 
that  we  should  not  have  hesitated  to  pronounce  it  untranslatable,  but  for  the  fact  thatan  eminent 
teacher  and  accomplished  writer  of  our  own  country  has  achieved  what  wc  regarded  as  a  sheer 
impossibility.  Wc  are  glad  to  have  a  book  made  legible  in  English,  which,  in  spite  of  its  original 
uncouthness,  has  been  eminently  useful,  as  a  vehicle,  not  only  of  the  best  historical  know  1.  dge, 
but  of  sincere  piety,  and  sound  religious  sentiment  in  reference  to  all  essentials.— Princeton 
Review. 

In  clearness  the  style  of  the  translation  exceeds  the  original.  The  natural  animation  and  life- 
like character,  which  commonly  vanish  in  the  process  of  translating  from  the  German,  have  been 
retained  with  signal  success.  We  are  disposed  to  consider  it  the  best  of  the  current  text-books 
for  the  use  for  which  Prof.  Shedd  designs  it.  —  New  Englander. 

Here  is  a  Manual  of  Church  ITistor}'  which  may  be  confidently  recommended,  without  reserve 
or  qualification,  to  students  belonging  to  all  evangelical  churches.  Guericke  is  thoroughly  Or- 
thodox. His  evangelical  belief  and  feeling  give  him  a  lively  and  appreciative  interest  in  the  in- 
ternal history  of  the  Church  ;  he  devotes  special  attention  to  the  development  of  doctrines,  and 
presents  the  range  of  thought  and  substance  of  opinion  distinguishing  the  works  of  the  princi- 
pal writers  in  successive  ages  of  the  Church.  Guerickc's  manual  is  complete  in  the  particular 
lines  of  history  he  has  chosen,  and  is  a  most  useful  and  reliable  book  for  the  theological  class- 
room Professor  Shedd  has  wisely  translated  with  freedom,  and  has  improved  the  structure  of  the 
work.  —  Nonconformist. 

We  are  glad  that  a  Manual  of  Church  History  has  appeared  which  exhibits,  at  once,  undoubted 
orthodoxy,  and  that  grasp  of  mind  which  alone  is  capable  of  treating  such  a  subject  with  a  lu- 
minous anu  lively  brevity.—  Clerical  Journal. 

With  the  additions  and  improvements  made  in  the  successive  editions,  it  is  now,  on  the  whole, 
the  most  readable  work  on  Church  History  to  be  found.    We  have  used  the  original  for  soma 

years,  and  entirely  agree  with  the  translator,  that  it  hits  the  mean   between  an  offensive  fullness 
and  a  barren  epitome.—  Central  Christian  Herald. 

(1) 


Publications  of  W.  F.  Draper,  Andocer. 


DISCOURSES  AND  ESSAYS.     By  William   G.  T    Shedd.     324  rp 

12mo.  SI .00. 

The  striking  sincerity,  vigor,  and  learning  of  this  volume  will  be  admired  even  by  those  rend- 
ers who  cannot  go  with  the  author  in  all  his  opinions.  'Whatever  debate  the  philosophic  1  ten- 
dencies of  the  book  may  challenge,  its  literary  ability  and  moral  spirit  will  be  commended  every 
where.  —  New  Englander. 

These  elaborate  articles  are  written  in  a  lucid  and  racy  style,  and  invest  with  a  rare  interest  the 
themes  of  which  they  treat.  —  Bibliotheca  Sacra. 

These  Discourses  are  all  marked  by  profound  thought,  and  perspicuity  of  sentiment.— 
Princeton  Review. 

The  Essay  on  a  Natural  Rhetoric  we  earnestly  commend  to  all  persons  who  publicly  assume 
either  to  speak  or  to  write.  —  Universalist  Quarterly. 

Few  clearer  and  more  penetrating  minds  can  be  found  in  our  country  than  that  of  Prof.  Shedd. 
If  the  mind  gets  dull,  or  dry,  or  ungovernable,  put  it  to  grappling  with  these  masterly  produc- 
tions. —  Congregational  Herald,  Chicago. 

Each  of  these  Discourses  is  profoundly  and  ingeniously  elaborated,  and  the  volume  as  a  whole 
is  a  testimony  to  highly  intellectual  and  consistent  views  of  evangelical  truth.  —  Boston  Recorder. 

LECTURES  UPON  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OP  HISTORY.  By 
William  G.  T.  Shedd.    128  pp.  12mo.    60  cts. 

Professor  Shedd  has  already  achieved  a  high  reputation  for  the  union  of  philosophic  insight 
with  genuine  scholarship,  of  depth  and  clearness  of  thought  with  force  and  elegance  of  style, 
and  for  profound  views  of  sin  and  grace,  cherished  not  merely  on  theoretical,  but  still  more  on 
moral  and  experimental  grounds.  —  Princeton  Review. 

This  volume  consists  of  four  lectures,  of  which  the  following  are  the  titles:  The  Abstract  Idea 
of  History;  The  Nature  and  Definition  of  Secular  History;  The  Nature  and  Definition  of  Church 
History;  The  Verifying  Test  in  Church  History.  It  is  written  in  a  lucid  style,  and  will  interest 
the  students  of  theology  and  of  hiatory.  —  Bibliotheca  Sacra. 

The  style  of  these  Lectures  has  striking  merits.  The  author  chooses  his  words  with  rare  skill 
and  taste,  from  an  ample  vocabulary;  and  writes  with  strength  and  refreshing  simplicity.  The 
Philosophy  of  Realism,  in  application  to  history  and  historical  theology,  is  advocated  by  vigorous 
reasoning,  and  made  intelligible  by  original  and  felicitous  illustrations.  —  yew  Englander. 

The  "Lectures  upon  the  Philosophy  of  History,"  is  an  extraordinary  specimen  of  the  meta- 
physical treatise,  and  the  charm  of  its  rhetoric  is  not  less  noticeable.  Prof.  Shedd  never  puts  his 
creed  under  a  bushel,  but  there  are  few  students  of  any  sect  or  class  that  will  not  derive  great  as- 
sistance from  his  labors.  —  Universalist  Quarterly. 

It  bears  the  impress  of  an  elegant  as  well  as  highly  philosophical  mind.  —  Boston  Recorder. 

OUTLINES  OP  A  SYSTEMATIC  RHETORIC.  From  the  German 
of  Dr.  Francis  Theremin,  by  William  G.  T.  Shedd.  Third  and  Revised 
Edition,  with  an  Introductory  Essay  by  the  translator,    pp  216.    12mo.   75  cts. 

Advanced  students  will  find  it  well  worthy  of  perusal.  The  adoption  of  its  leading  ideas  would 
ennoble  the  arrof  rhetoric  into  a  science,  the  practice  of  speaking  into  a  virtue,  and  would  clothe 
the  whole  subject  in  our  schools  and  colleges  with  a  fresh  and  vital  interest.  —  Bibliotheca 
Sacra. 

Every  minister  and  theological  professor  (in  composition  and  rhetoric  especially)  should  rend 
it.  A  more  thorough  and  suggestive,  and,  in  the  main, Sensible  view  of  the  subject  is  hardly  to  be 
(band.  The  central  idea  of  Theremin's  theory  is,  that  Eloquence  is  a  Virtue,  and  he  who  reads 
this  little  book  will  be  sure  to  receive  an  impulse  In  the  direction  of  masculine  thoughtful  dis- 
course. —  Congregational  Ihrald. 

(*) 


Publications  of  W.  F.  Draper. 


AUBERLEN  ON  DANIEL  AND  THE  REVELATION.  Trans- 
lated by  Rev.  Adolpb  Saphlb.    8vo.    pp.  4D0.    $1.50. 

"  It  is  refreshing  to  one's  spirit  to  receive  a  book  of  tliis  kind  from  Germany The 

Prophecies  of  Daniel  and  of  John  have  long  been  the  sport  of  unbelieving  criticism;  and  if 
their  authority  as  the  products  of  Divine  Inspiration  could  have  been  overthrown  by  learning 
and  ingenuity  und  industry,  this  would  long  since  have  been  accomplished.  Undismayed  by 
the  long  array  of  learned  names  against  him,  Auberlen,  comparatively  a  young  writer,  has 
undertaken  the  defence  of  these  books,  and  has  manfully  fulfilled  his  task."—  Bib.  Sacra. 

ELLICOTT'S  COMMENTARY,  CRITICAL  AND  GRAMMAT- 
ICAL, on  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.  With  an  Introductory  Notice 
by  C.  E.  STOWS,  Professor  in  Audover  Theological  Seminary.  8vo.  pp.  183. 
S1.50. 

The  Commentaries  of  Prof.  Ellicott  supply  an  urgent  want  in  their  sphere  of  criticism.  Prof. 
Stowe  says  of  them,  in  his  Notice:  "  It  is  the  crowning  excellence  of  these  Commentaries  that 
they  are  exactly  what  they  profess  to  be,  critical  and  grammatical,  and  therefore,  in  the  best 
sense  of  the  term,  e.xegetical His  results  arc  worthy  of  all  confidence.  He  is  more  care- 
ful than  Teschendorf,  slower  and  more  steadily  deliberate  than  Alford,  and  more  patiently 
laborious  than  any  other  living  New  Testament  critic,  with  the  exception,  perhaps,  of  Tregel- 
lcs." 

"  They  [Ellieott's  Commentaries]  have  set  the  first  example,  in  this  conntiy,  [England]  of  a 
thorough  and  fearless  examination  of  the  grammatical  and  philological  requirements  of  every 
word  of  the  sacred  text.  I  do  not  know  of  anything  superior  to  them,  in  their  own  particular 
line,  in  Germany;  and  they  add,  what,  alas!  is  so  seldom  found  in  that  country,  profound 
reverence  for  the  matter  and  subjects  on  which  the  author  is  laboring;  nor  is  their  value 
lessened  by  Mr.  Ellieott's  having  confined  himself  for  the  most  part  to  one  department  of  a 
commentator's  work  —  the  grammatical  and  philological."  —  Dean  Alford. 

"  The  critical  part  is  devoted  to  the  settling  of  the  text,  and  this  is  admirably  done,  with  a 
labor,  skill,  and  conscientiousness  unsurpassed." —  Bib.  Sacra. 

"  "We  have  never  met  with  a  learned  commentary  on  any  book  of  the  New  Testament  so 
nearly  perfect  in  every  respect  as  the  '  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.'  by  Prof. 
Ellicott,  of  King's  College,  London, —  learned,  devout,  and  orthodox."—  Independent. 

'•  We  would  recommend  all  scholars  of  the  original  Scriptures  who  seek  directness,  luminous 
brevity,  the  absence  of  everything  irrelevant  to  strict  grammatical  inquiry,  with  a  concise  and 
yet  very  complete  view  of  the  opinions  of  others,  to  possess  themselves  of  Ellieott's  Commen- 
taries." —  American  Presbyterian. 

HENDERSON  ON  THE  MINOR  PROPHETS.  TFIE  BOOK 
OF  THE  TWELVE  MINOR  PROPHETS.  Translated  from  the  Original 
Hebrew.  With  a  Commentary,  Critical,  Philological,  and  Exegetical.  By 
E.  Henderson,  D.D.  With  a  Biographical  Sketch  of  the  Author,  by  E.  P. 
Barrows,  Hitchcock  Professor  in  Audover  Theological  Semiuary.  8vo. 
pp.490.    $3.00. 

"  This  Commentary  on  the  Minor  Prophets,  like  that  on  the  Prophfcy  of  Isaiah,  has  been 
highly  and  deservedly  esteemed  by  professional  scholars,  and  has  been  of  great  service  to  the 
working  ministry.  We  are  happy  to  welcome  it  in  an  American  edition,  very  neatly  printed." 
—  Lib.  Sacra. 

"Clergymen  and  other  students  of  the  Bible  will  be  glad  to  see  this  handsome  American 
edition  of  a  work  which  has  a  standard  reputation  in  its  department,  and  which  fills  a  place 
that  is  filled,  so  far  as  we  know,  by  no  other  single  volume  In  the  English  language.  Dr.  Hen- 
derson was  a  good  Hebrew  and  Biblical  scholar,  and  in  his  Commentaries  he  is  intelligent, 
brief,  and  fo  the  point."  —  Bonton  Recorder. 

"The  American  publisher  issues  this  valuable  work  with  the  consent  and  approbation  of  the 
author,  obtained  from  himself  before  his  death.  It  is  published  in  substantial  and  elegant  style, 
clear  white  paper  and  beautiful  type.  The  work  is  invaluable  for  its  philological  research  and 
critical  acumen.  The  notes  arc  learned,  reliable,  and  practical,  and  the  volume  deserves  a 
place  in  every  theological  student's  library."-'  American  Presbyterian,  etc. 

"  Of  all  his  Commentaries  none  are  more  popular  than  his  Book  of  the  Minor  Prophets."  — 
Christian  Observer. 

"  This  is  probably  the  best  Commentary  extant  on  the  Minor  Prophets.  The  work  is  worthy 
of  a  place  in  the  library  of  every  scholar  and  every  diligent  and  earuest  reader  of  the  Bible."  — 
Christian  Chronicle. 

"  We  have  met  with  no  so  satisfactory  a  commentary  on  this  part  of  the  prophetic  Scrip- 
tures."— Watchman  «r  ReficcUtT, 

(3) 


Publications  ofW.F.  Draper. 


COMMENTARY  ON  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS.  By 
Moses  Stuart,  late  Professor  of  Sacred  Literature  in  the  Theological 
Seminary  at  Andover.  Third  Edition.  Edited  and  revised  by  ruoj)\  li.  D. 
C. Bobbins.    l2mo.    pp.544.    $1.50. 

"  His  Commentary  on  the  Romans  is  the  most  elaborate  of  all  his  works.  It  has  elicited  more 
discussion  than  any  of  his  other  exegetical  volumes.  It  is  the  result  of  long  continued,  patient 
thought.  It  expresses,  in  clear  style,  his  maturest  conclusions.  It  has  the  animating  influence 
of  an  original  treatise,  written  on  a  novel  plan,  and  under  a  sense  of  personal  responsibility. 
Regarding  it  in  all  its  relations,  its  antecedents  and  consequents,  we  pronounce  it  the  most 
important  Commentary  which  has  appeared  in  this  country  on  this  Epistle." —  Bib.  Sacra. 

'•  We  heartily  commend  this  work  to  all  students  of  the  Bible.  The  production  of  one  of  the 
first  Biblical  scholars  of  our  age,  on  the  most  important  of  all  the  doctrinal  books  of  the  New 
Testament,  it  deserves  the  careful  study,  not  only  of  those  who  agree  with  Prof.  Stuart  in  his 
theological  and  exegetical  principles,  but  of  those  who  earnestly  dissent  from  some  of  his 
views  in  both  respects."  —  Watchman  and  Reflector. 

"This  contribution  by  Prof.  Stuart  has  justly  taken  a  high  place  among  the  Commentaries 
on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  and,  with  his  other  works,  will  always  be  held  in  high  estimation 
by  I  lie  student  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures."  —  yew  York  Observer. 

COMMENTARY    ON    THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    HEBREWS. 

By  Prof.  M.  Stuart.    Third  Edition.  Edited  and  revised  by  Prop.  11.  D.  C. 

Hobbins.     12mo.    pp.  575.     $1.75. 

"  It  is  a  rich  treasure  for  the  student  of  the  original.  As  a  commentator,  Prof.  Stuart  was 
especially  arduous  and  faithful  in  following  up  the  thought  and  displaying  the  connection  of  a 
passage,  and  his  work  as  a  scholar  will  bear  comparison  with  any  that  have  since  appeared  on 
either  side  of  the  Atlantic."  —  American  Presbyterian. 

"  This  Commentary  is  classical,  both  as  to  its  literary  and  its  theological  merits.  The  edition 
before  us  is  very  skilfully  edited,  by  Professor  Robbins,  and  gives  in  full  Dr.  Stuart's  text,  with 
additions  bringing  it  down  to  the  present  day."—  Episcopal  Recorder. 

"  We  have  always  regarded  this  excellent  Commentary  as  the  happiest  effort  of  the  late 
Andover  Professor.  It  seems  to  us  well-nigh  to  exhaust  the  subjects  which  the  author  compre- 
hended in  his  plan."  —  Boston  Recorder. 

"  It  is  from  the  mind  and  heart  of  an  eminent  Biblical  scholar,  whose  labors  in  the  cause  of 
sacred  learning  will  not  soon  be  forgotten."—  Christian  Observer. 

COMMENTARY  ON  THE  BOOK  OP  PROVERBS.  By  Prop. 
M.  Stuart.    i2mo.    pp.432.    &1.25. 

"  This  is  the  last  work  from  the  pen  of  Prof.  Stuart.  Both  this  Commentary  and  the  one 
preceding  it,  on  Eccksiastes,  exhibit  a  mellowness  of  spirit  which  savors  of  the  good  man  ripen- 
ing for  heaven;  and  the  style  is  more  condensed,  and,  in  that  respect,  more  agreeable,  than  in 
some  of  the  works  which  were  written  in  the  unabated  freshness  and  exuberant  vigor  of  his 
mind.  In  learning  and  critical  acumen  they  are  equal  to  his  former  works.  No  English 
reader,  we  venture  to  say,  can  elsewhere  find  so  complete  a  philological  exposition  of  these  two 
important  books  of  the  Old  Testament."  —  Bib.  Sacra. 

STUART'S   MISCELLANIES,    pp.369.    12mo.    75  cents. 

Contents.  — I.  Letters  to  Dr.  Channing  on  the  Trinity.  — II.  Two  Sermons  on  the  Atone- 
ment.—III.  Sacramental  Sermon  on  the  Lamb  of  God.  — IV.  Dedication  Sermon.  — Real 
Christianity.  —  V.  Letter  to  Dr.  Channing  on  Religious  Liberty.  — VI.  Supplementary  Notes 
and  Postscripts. 

STUART'S  GREEK  GRAMMAR  OP  THE  NEW  TESTA- 
MENT DIALECT.    Second  Edition.    Corrected  and  rewritten.    8vo.    81.00 


PRINCIPLES  OP  INTERPRETATION.  Translated  from  the  Latin 
of  .1.  A.  Erneeti,  and  accompanied  by  Auks,  with  an  Appendix  containing 
Extracts  from  .Munis,  Beck,  Keil.and  Henderson.  By  JM.  Stuart.  Fourth 
Edition.     12mo.     Half  cloth,     pp.142.     GO  cents. 

STUART'S  HEBREW  CHRESTOMATHY.  Designed  as  an  Intro. 
doctiou  to  a  coarse  of  Hebrew  Study.   Third  Edition,   8vo.   pp.231.   75cents. 

(4) 


Publications  of  W.  F.  Draper. 


MESSIANIC    PROPHECY    AND    THE     LIFE    OF    CHRIST. 
By  Rev.  W.  S.  Kennedy.    12mo.    pp.484.    $1.00. 

*'  The  plan  of  the  author  is  to  collect  nil  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament  referring  to  the 
Messiah,  with  appropriate  commenfa  and  reflections,  and  then  to  pursue  the  luhject  through 
the  New  Testament  In  the  lift  of  Christ  us  he  appeared  among  men.    The  render  will  And  the 

results  of  Hengstenherg  and  Neander  here  gathered  up,  and  presented  In  n  readable  shape."  — 
The  Presbyterian. 

"  This  is  a  work  of  preat  comprehensiveness.  Here,  in  the  compass  of  less  than  five  hundred 
duodecimo  pages,  we  have  the  Chris  tology  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  Scriptures,  some- 
thing like  n  combination  Of  the  Christology  of  Hengstenherg  and  Neander's  Lift  of  Christ.  Of 
course  the  fulness  of  these  great  works  is  not  imitated,  but  the  reader  will  find  the  results  of 
these  and  similar  investigations  carefully  gathered  up,  and  presented  in  a  clear,  readable  shape. 
The  Life  of  Christ  is  based  upon  Robinson's  Harmony  of  the  Gospels."  —  American  Presbyterian. 

SCHAUFFLER'S  MEDITATIONS  ON  THE  LAST  DAYS  OF 

CHRIST.    12mo.    pp.439.    $1.00. 

The  first  sixteen  chapters  of  the  book  consist  of  Meditations  on  the  last  days  of  Christ, 
preached  in  the  midst  of  plague  and  death,  by  Rev.  Mr.  Schauffler,  at  Constantinople;  the  second 
part,  of  eight  sermons  on  the  17th  chapter  of  John,  and  is  a  practical  exposition  of  that  chapter. 

BIBLE    HISTORY    OF    PRAYER.     By  C.  A.   Goodrich.     12mo. 

pp.384.    $1.00. 

The  aim  of  this  little  volume  is  to  embody  an  account  of  the  delightful  and  successful  inter- 
course of  believers  with  heaven  for  some  four  thousand  years.  The  author  has  indulged  a 
good  deal  in  narrative,  opening  and  explaining  the  circumstances  which  gave  birth  to  the 
several  prayers. 

MONOD'S     DISCOURSES    ON    THE    LIFE    OF    ST.    PAUL. 
Translated  from  the  French,  by  Rev.  J.  II.  Myers,  D.D.    12mo.    pp.  191. 

75cts. 

"  The  aim  of  the  author  is  to  present  an  estimate  of  the  character,  labors,  and  writings  of  the 
apostle  Paul  in  the  light  of  an  example,  and  to  apply  the  principles  which  actuated  him,  and 
■which  he  maintained,  to  Christians  of  the  present  day."  —  Boston  Journal. 

"These  Discourses  are  distinguished  for  genuine  eloquence,  thorough  research,  and  pro- 
found thought,  accompanied  with  a  glowing,  earnest  6pirit,  adapting  the  lessons  of  the  great 
Apostle  to  the  spiritual  wants  of  men." —  Christian  Observer. 

"  The  work  is  of  rare  merit.  The  author  was  one  of  the  brightest  lights  of  the  French  pulpit 
in  the  present  age,  and  his  death  was  a  source  of  great  grief  throughout  the  evangelical  Prot- 
estant world.  As  we  read  these  Discourses,  in  which  the  preacher  holds  up  the  great  Apostle 
before  his  hearers,  and  urges  them  to  take  him  as  their  example,  we  cannot  but  ftel  that  there 
is  a  real  sympathy  between  the  preacher  and  his  subject  that  could  only  exist  in  virtue  of  a 
work  by  the  same  Spirit  of  God  upon  natural  temperaments  and  dispositions  of  mind  strikingly 
akin  to  each  other."  —  N.  C.  Presbyterian. 

"  This  little  volume  we  regard  as  a  very  valuable  addition  to  what  may  be  called  the  '  Liter- 
ature of  the  apostle  Paul.'  The  number  of  books  that  have  been  composed  upon  St.  Paul 
is  one  of  the  many  proofs  of  his  greatness,  both  by  nature  and  grace.  Rut,  of  them  all,  there 
is  not  a  more  vital  and  appreciating  book  than  this  of  Monod.  Original  and  suggestive  thoughts 
are  continually  struck  out  upon  collateral  subjects,  while  yet  the  principal  aim  of  the  work 
is  never  lost  sight  of.  The  account  of  the  physique  of  the  apostle,  in  its  relations  to  eloquence 
(p.  115,  seq.),  will  interest  the  preacher.  The  translation  is  faithful  and  elegant ;  reproducing, 
in  no  ordinary  degree,  the  finer  and  more  intangible  qualities  in  the  style  of  a  vivid  and  com- 
manding orator."  —  Bib.  Sacra,  18G0. 

CARLYLE'S  LATTER-DAY  PAMPHLETS.  12mo.  pp.427.   $1.00. 
Contents.  —  The  Present  Time.— Model  Prisons.  —  Downing  Street.  — The  New  Down- 
ing Street.  —  Stump  Orator.  —  Parliaments.  —  Hudson's  Statue.  —  Jesuitism. 


Publications  of  W.  F.  Draper,  Andover 


THEOLOGIA  GERMANICA.  Which  setteth  forth  many  fair  lineaments 
of  Divine  Truth,  and  saith  very  lofty  and  lovely  things  touching  a  Perfect  Life. 
Edited  hy  Dr.  Pfeiffeu,  from  the  only  complete  manuscript  yet  known. 
Translated  from  the  German  hy  Susanna  Winkworth.  With  a  Preface  by 
the  Rev.  Charles  Kingsley,  Rector  of  Eversley ;  and  a  Letter  to  the  Trans- 
lator, by  the  Chevalier  Bunsen,  D.  D.,  D.  C.  L.,  etc. ;  and  an  Introduction 
by  Prof.  Calvin  E  Stowe,  D.  D.    275  pp.    16mo.   Cloth,  81.00  :  calf,  $2.00. 

This  treatise  was  discovered  by  Luther,  who  first  brought  it  into  notice  by  an  edition  which 
he  published  in  1516,  of  which  he  says  :  "  And  I  will  soy,  though  it  be  boasting  of  myself,  and 
'  I  speak  as  a  fool,'  that,  next  to  the  Bible  and  St.  Augustine,  no  book  hath  ever  come  into  my 
hands  whence  I  have  learnt,  or  would  wish  to  learn,  more  of  what  God  and  Christ,  and  man, 
and  all  things,  are." 

"  The  times  and  the  circumstances  in  which  this  most  rich,  thoughtful,  and  spiritually 
quickening  little  treatise  was  produced,  —  the  national  and  ecclesiastical  tendencies  and  influ- 
ences which  invested  its  author,  and  which  gave  tone,  direction,  and  pressure  to  his  thoughts, 
—  are  amply  and  well  set  forth  in  the  preface  by  Miss  Winkworth,  and  the  letter  of  Bunsen. 
The  treatise  itself  is  richly  deserving  of  the  eulogies  upon  it  so  emphatically  and  affectionately 
uttered  by  Prof.  Stowe  and  Mr.  Kingsley,  and,  long  before  them,  by  Luther,  who  said  that  it 
had  profited  him  '  more  than  any  other  book,  save  only  the  Bible  and  the  works  of  Augustine.' 
Sin,  as  a  universal  disease  and  defilement  of  the  nature  of  man  ;  Christ,  as  an  indwelling  life, 
light,  and  heavenly  power  ;  Holiness,  as  the  utmost  good  for  the  soul  ;  and  Heaven,  as  the 
State  or  place  of  the  consummation  of  this  holiness,  with  the  consequent  vision  of  God,  and 
the  inefl'ubie  joy  and  peace,—  these  are  the  theme  of  the  book.  Audit  has  the  grand,  and  in 
this  day  the  so  rare  and  almost  singular  merit,  of  having  been  prompted  by  a  real  nnd  deep  relig- 
ious experience,  and  of  having  been  written,  not  with  outward  assistance,  but  with  the  enthu- 
siasm, the  spiritual  wisdom,  and  the  immense  inward  freedom  and  energy,  of  a  soul  itself  con- 
scious of  union  with  Christ,  and  exulting  in  the  sense  of  being  made,  through  him,  '  a  partaker 
Of  the  Divine  nature.' 

"  Those  who  have  known  the  most  of  Christ  will  value  most  this  "  golden  treatise."  Those 
Whose  experience  of  the  divine  truth  has  been  deepest  and  most  central  will  find  the  most  in 
it  to  instruct  and  to  quicken  them.  To  such  it  will  be  an  invaluable  volume  worth  thousands 
upon  thousands  of  modern  scientific  or  hortatory  essays  upon  "  Religion  made  easy." 

"  It  is  printed  by  Mr.  Draper,  at  the  Andover  press,  in  the  old  English  style,  with  beautiful 
car.  fulness  and  skill,  and  is  sent,  post  paid,  to  all  who  remit  him  one  dollar."—  Independent. 

"  The  work  is  at  once  a  literary  curiosity  and  a  theological  gem."  —  Puritan  Recorder. 

"  This  little  volume,  whicli  is  brought  out  in  antique  type,  is,  apart  from  its  intrinsic  value,  a 
curiosity  of  literature.  It  may  be  regarded  as  the  harbinger  of  the  Protestant  Reformation."  — 
Evening  Traveller. 

THE    CONFESSIONS    OP    ST.    AUGUSTINE.     Edited,  with  au 

Introduction,  by  Prof.  W.  G.  T.  Shedd.     §1.25. 

"In  this  beautiful  edition  of  Augustine's  Confessions,  published  in  the  antique  style,  the 
translation  has  been  carefully  revised  by  Prof.  Shedd,  of  Andover,  from  a  comparison  with  the 
Latin  text.  His  Introduction  presents  a  fine  analysis  of  Augustine's  religious  experience  in  its 
bearing  upon  his  theological  system.  Both  the  intellect  and  the  heart  of  the  modern  preacher 
may  be  refreshed  and  stimulated  by  the  frequent  perusal  of  these  confessions."  —  Independent. 

"  Prof.  Shedd  has  earned  our  heartfelt  thanks  for  this  elegant  edition  of  Augustine's  Confes- 
sions. The  book  is  profitable  for  the  Christian  to  study,  and  we  would  commend  it  as  a  daily 
companion  in  the  closet  of  the  intelligent  believer  who  desires  to  be  taught  the  way  to  holiness 
through  communion  of  the  Spirit.  Prof.  Shedd's  Introduction  is  a  masterly  essay,  which  itself 
is  a  volume  for  attentive  reading.  It  ought  to  be  read  before  the  book  is  begun.  Thorough, 
searching,  and  discriminating  beyond  the  facts  it  communicates,  its  instructions  and  hints  are 
suggestive  and  invaluable."  — A'.  Y.  Observer. 

"  This  is  a  beautiful  edition  of  a  precious  work.  The  Confessions  of  Augustine  nre  so  honest, 
that  we  easily  become  enthusiastic  in  their  praise.  The  depth  of  his  piety,  the  boldness  of  his 
imagination,  the  profoundness  of  his  genius,  his  extravagant  conceptions,  his  very  straining  and 
Stretching  of  philosophical  and  biblical  statements,  have  all  a  certain  charm  which  ensures' for 
his  works  an  enduring  popularity."—  Bib.  Sacra,  W.O,  p.  C'l. 

"  We  have  long  wanted  to  see  just  such  an  edition  of  Augustine's  Confessions.  The  editor 
has  done  a  public  service  in  introducing  it ;  and  its  typographical  beauty  is  no  small  recom- 
mendation of  it."  —  I'res'jvtcrian,  June  23, 1800. 

(•) 


Publications  of  W.  K  Drapt  r. 


DODERLEIW'S  HAND-BOOK  OF  LATIN  SYNONYMES. 
Translated  by  Bbv.  ll.  n.  Arnold,  B.  A.,  with  an  Introduction  by  8.  H. 
Taylob,  LL  l>.    New  Edition,  with  an  Index  of  Greek  words.    lGmo.    pp. 

207.     80  cents. 

"  The  present  hand-book  of  Dodcrlein  is  remarkable  for  the  brevity,  distinctness,  perspicuity, 
mid  appositcness  of  its  definitions.  It  will  richly  reward  not  merely  the  classical,  but  the  gen- 
eral student,  for  the  labor  he  nuiy  devote  to  it.    It  |g difficult  to  open  the  volume,  even  at  random, 

witliout  discovering  sonic  hint  which  may  he  useful  to  a  theologian From  the  preceding 

extracts,  it  will  he  seen  that  this  hand-book  is  useful  in  elucidating  many  Greek  as  well  as  Latin 
6ynoiiymcs."—  Bib.  Sacra. 

"  The  little  volume  mentioned  above,  introduced  to  the  American  public  by  an  eminent 
Scholar  and  Teacher,  Samuel  II.  Taylor,  LL.  D.,  is  one  of  the  best  helps  to  the  thorough  appre- 
ciation of  the  nice  shades  of  meaning  in  Latin  words  that  have  met  my  eye.  It  deserves  tin: 
attention  of  teachers  and  learners,  and  will  amply  reward  patient  study."  —  E.  D.  Sanborn,  lute 
Profiusor  of  Latin  in  Dartmouth  College. 

"  'Die  study  of  it  will  conduce  much  to  thorough  and  accurate  knowledge  of  the  old  Roman 
tongue.  To  the  present  edition  is  appended  an  'index  of  Greek  words,'  which  embraces  all 
the  Greek  words  contained  in  the  Latin  Synonymeo,  and  affords  valuable  aid  iu  the  elucidation 
of  Greek  Sy nony mes. "—  Boston  Recorder. 

POLITICAL  ECONOMY.  Designed  as  a  Text-Book  for  Colleges.  By 
John  Bascom,  A.  M.,  Professor  in  Williams  College.  12mo.  pp.  306. 
§  1.00. 

"It  goes  over  the  whole  ground  in  a  logical  order.  The  matter  is  perspicnonslv  arranged 
under  distinct  chapters  and  sections;  it  is  a  compendious  exhibition  of  the  principles  of  the 
science  witliout  prolonged  disquisitions  on  particular  points,  and  it  is  printed  in  the  style  lor 
which  the  Andovcr  Press  has  long  been  deservedly  celebrated."  —  Princeton  Review. 

"  This  work  is  one  of  value  to  the  student.  It  treats  of  the  relations  and  character  of  political 
economy,  its  advantages  as  a  study,  and  its  history.  Almost  every  subject  in  the  range  of  the 
science  is  here  touched  upon  and  examined  in  a  manner  calculated  to  interest  and  instruct  the 
reader."  —  Amherst  Express. 

"  The  book  is  worthy  a  careful  study,  both  for  the  views  it  contains  and  as  a  mental  training. 
The  author  understands  himself,  and  has  evidently  studied  his  subject  well.  The  style  iu  which 
it  is  put  forth  also  commends  it  to  the  reading  community." —  Evening  E?/>ress. 

"This  is  a  valuable  work  upon  a  subject  of  much  interest.  Professor  Iiascom  writes  well, 
and  his  book  makes  an  excellent  manual.  His  stand-point  in  the  middle  of  the  lStth  century 
gives  it  a  character  quite  unlike  that  of  the  older  works  upon  the  subject."  —  Boston  Recorder. 

RUSSELL'S  PULPIT  ELOCUTION.  Comprising  Bemarks  on  the 
Effect  of  Manner  in  public  Discourse;  the  Elements  of  Elocution  applied  to 
the  Beading  of  the  Scriptures,  Hymns  and  Sermons;  with  Observations  on 
the  Principles  of  Gesture;  and  a  Selection  of  Exercises  in  Beading  and 
Speaking.  With  an  Introduction  by  PBOF.  E.  A.  Bark  and  Bev.  E.  N. 
Kirk.    413  pp.    12mo.     Second  Edition.    $1.25. 

"  Mr.  Russell  is  known  as  one  of  the  masters  of  elocutionary  science  in  the  United  States. 
He  has  labored  long,  skilfully,  and  successfully  in  that  most  interesting  held,  and  has  acquired 
an  honored  name  among  the  teachers  and  writers  upon  rhetoric.  It  is  one  of  the  most  thorough 
publications  upon  the  subject,  and  is  admirably  addressed  to  the  correction  of  the  various 
detects  which  diminish  the  influence  of  pulpit  discourses.  It  is  already  an  established  authority 
iu  many  places."—  Literary  World. 

HISTORICAL  MANUAL  OF  THE  SOUTH  CHURCH  IN  AN- 
DOVEB,  MASS.      Compiled  by  Bev.  George  Mooar;  with  a  portrait  of 
Bev.  Samuel  Biiillips,  first  Pastor  of  the  Church.    12mo.    pp  200.     S 1.-5. 
"  This  manual  has  a  value  far  beyond  the  promise  made  in  its  title-page.    Henceforth,  what- 
ever may   befall  the   records   of  the  South  Church  in  Andover,  or  even  the  Church  itself,— 
though  both  were  blotted  from  the  earth,  —  its  history  tor  a  hundred  and  fifty  years  is  safe.     Ami 
in  that  history  is  embraced  an  amount  of  instruction  rarely  condensed  into  BO  small  a  space. 
The  catalogue  of  members,  numbering  2,177,  indicates  the  date  and  manner  of  admission  — 
whether  by  profession  or  letter;  the  date  and  manner  of  removal  —  whether  by  death,  dismis- 
sion, or  excommunication;   generally  the  age  of  the  deceased,  and,  if  females  who  married 
during  their  membership,  the  names  of  their  husbands."—  Congregational  Quarterly. 

»} 


Publications  of  W.  F.  Draper,  Andover. 

BIBLIOTHECA     SACRA     AND     BIBLICAL     EEPOSITQBY. 

E.  A.  Pare  and  S.  II.  Taylor,  Editors.     Published  at  Andover  on  the  first 

of  January,  April,  July  and  October. 

Each  number  contains  about  225  pages,  making  a  volume  of  WO  p-gcs  yearly.  This  work  is 
larger,  by  more  than  100  pages  per  volume  than  any  other  religious  quarterly  in  the  country. 

This  Review  is  edited  by  Prof.  E.  A.  Park,  of  the  Theological  Seminary,  and  S.  II.  Taylor, 
LL.  D.,  of  Phillips  Academy,  Andover.  Among  its  regular  contributors,  are  eminent  scholars 
connected  with  various  theological  and  collegiate  institutions  of  the  United  States.  Its  pages 
will  be  enriched  by  such  contributions  from  Foreign  Missionaries  in  the  East  as  may  illustrate 
the  Biblical  Record  ;  and  also  by  sucli  essays  from  distinguished  naturalists  as  may  elucidate 
the  agreement  between  Science  and  Religion.  It  is  the  organ  of  no  clique  or  party,  but  aims 
to  exhibit  the  broad  scriptural  views  of  truth,  aud  to  cherish  a  catholic  spirit  among  the  con- 
flicting schools  of  evangelical  divines. 

"  Questions  of  philosophy  and  the  analysis  of  language,  of  Biblical  and  literary  criticism,  of 
the  constitution  and  life  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  of  practical  morality  and  evangelical  religion, 
of  biblical  geography  and  the  interpretation  of  prophecy,  and  the  relation  of  Science  to  Religion, 
together  with  rmplc  literary  intelligence,  both  foreign  and  domestic,"  — these  make  up  t.ie 
matter  of  each  number,  and  cannot  fail  to  interest  Christian  Scholars,  Clergymen  and  Lavmen. 

Terms.—  $4.00  per  annum.  A  discount  of  25  per  cent,  will  be  made  to  those  who  pay 
strictly  IN  advance,  and  receive  the  numbers  directly  from  the  office  of  publication,  post- 
age unpaid.    When  supplied  by  agents,  $3,50,  in  advance  ;  otherwise  $4  00. 

Postage.-  The  postage  is  five  cents  per  number,  or  twenty  cents  per  year,  to  any  part 
of  the  United  States. 

TESTIMONY  OF  THE  PRESS. 

The  articles,  treating  of  interesting  themes  useful  to  the  general  scholar  as  well  as  the  theolo- 
gian, fully  sustain  the  very  high  character  of  this  quarterly,  which,  restricted  to  no  sect  and 
broad  in  its  range  of  thought  and  instruction,  has  commended  itself  to  the  best  minds  ;n  our 
own  and  foreign  lands.    [Boston  Courier. 

This,  as  is  well  known,  is  the  great  religious  Quarterly  of  New  England,  if  not  of  the  coun- 
try, and  is  held  in  high  estimation  in  England  and  Germany  as  the  principal  organ  of  biblical 
and  philological  criticism  in  the  English  language. 

This  work  as  now  conducted,  deserves  a  large  and  generous  patronage  from  clergymen  of  all 
denominations.     [Puritan  Recorder. 

No  Parish  is  either  poor  or  rich  enough  to  be  able  to  do  without  its  benefit  to  its  pastor. 
[Congregationalism 

INDEX  TO  THE  BIBLIOTHECA  SACEA  AND  EIBLICAL 
REPOSITORY,  Volumes  1  to  13  (from  1844  to  1856.)  Containing  an  Index 
of  Subjects  and  Authors,  a  Topical  Index,  and  a  list  of  Scripture  Texts.  Pa- 
per covers,  SI. 75;   cloth,  S2.00;   half  goat,  S2.50. 

BIBLICAL  BEPOSITOBY,  First  Series,  comprising  the  twelve  volumes 
from  the  commencement  of  the  work  to  1S3S.  The  first  four  volumes  contain 
each  four  numbers  ;  the  succeeding  eight  volumes,  two  numbers  each.  A  few 
sets  only  remain. 

The  Biblical  Repository  was  commenced,  at  Andover,  in  1831.  The  present  series  of  the  Bih- 
liotheca  Sacra  was  commenced  in  1844.  The  two  periodicals  were  united  in  1851.  The  volume 
of  the  combined  periodicals  tor  the  present  year  (1881)  is  the  forty-ninth  of  the  Biblical  Repos- 
itory and  the  eighteenth  of  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra. 


VIEW   OP   ALiDOVER.    A  finely  executed  Lithographic  View  of  An- 
dover, on  a  sheel  1    bj  24  inches,  exclusive  of  the  margin. 

The  sheet  contains  a  view  of  the  Town  from  the  west,  and  an  enlarged  delineation  of  the 
Literary  Institutions  in  the  border.    It  will  be  sent  by  mail,  post  paid,  on  receipt  of  $1,25. 

(lO) 


Date  Due 

Afo  HliTrtlft 

zm 

,^^^ ^^ 

pv&±. 

XBlH^ 

up 

f^^iilH 

^ii  ■"IIWW 

jpu*^ 

y 

r""* 

i 

9 

'  •> 


